### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5
JEFF REY LY NN MY ERS v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for White County No. CR 899 Lillie Ann S ells, Jud ge

No. M2004- 02411-CCA -MR 3-P C - F iled Jun e 29, 2005

This is an appeal as of right from the denial of post -convic tion relief

. The Defendant, J eff rey Ly nn My ers, wa s convicted of one count of attempted rape upon entry of a best-intere st g uiltyplea. He was sente nced to six y ear s’ imp ri s o n m en t as a Rang e I , standard of fende r. The D efe ndant filed a pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f and re c e ive d an e vid e nti ary he ari ng . T he tria l c ou rt

su bs e qu e ntl y denied the D efe ndant’s petition, and he now appea ls to thi s Court. H e arg ues multipl e issues, all of wh ic h w e fi ndto h a ve be e n w a ive d b e c aus e thec la ims aree ith e r ( 1) no t pr op e r i ssu e s f or a po stconviction proc eeding , (2) not prope rly prese rve d for a

ppeal, or (3) not re viewable due to an incomplete re cord. We a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and J. C. M C LIN , J J ., joined.
J eff rey Ly nn My ers, Whiteville, Tennesse e, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; J ohn H. B ledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Wil liam E

. Gibson, District Attorney Gene ral; and William M. L ocke, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

F AC TS
Acc ording to the fac tual basis prese nted at the plea a cce ptance hearing, the fac ts surrounding thera pe c on vic tio n at is su e in this c a se c a n b e su mma ri zeda s f oll ow s: The proof

would b asica lly

be that Mr. My ers wa s the boy friend of [t he
v ic ti m’ s ] m o th e r
. O c c a s io n a ll y s tay e d in th e h o mew ith th e mo th e r a n d [th e v ic ti m]

.Cl as s B f el on i es
. Se e T en n
. Code An n
. § 39- 13- 503. Addi t i on al l y , a c on v i ct i on for rap e requir es 100% 1

se rv ic e o f sen te n c e . S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 5 -5 0 1 (i)( 1 ), (2 )( G ). -2- Th e a lle g a tio ns wo uldbe that at some po int du ri ng that time Mr . M y e rs ha d a , I g ue ss sexual relationship with [ the victim] who was f ourtee n. She would alleg e on about Ma rch the 28th , 2 0 0 1 that he came in her r oom about four o’ clock and eng ag ed in sexual intercourse with her. She late r on that day tol d, wa s q ue sti on ed by

he r m oth e r, tol d h e r m oth e r that y e s, sh e ha d h a d s e x with Mr . M y e rs . Sh e wa s th e n ta ken to the She ri ff ’s De pa rt me nt andthe n th e Whit e CountyHospital wherea ra pe kit was done. It came back say ing that it didn’t show a whole lot, but there was some DNA taken that wa s sent off and compar ed to a towel that the victim had talked about the def endant wiping himself on and her and his DNA we re on this towel. Upon furthe r investig ation t h e v i ct i m also stated that the De fendant had ra ped her on one other
occa sion. I n September of 2001, the Def

endant wa s indicted on two counts of ra pe. The De fendant 1
was a ppointed counsel, a nd befor e the c ase pr ocee ded to trial an a g ree ment was re ache d under w hich the Def endant would plea d g uiltyto one count of the le sser-inc luded offe nse of attempted rape and
rec eive a sentenc e of six y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r wi t h a 30% relea se elig ibilit y date. Th e De f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a b e s t

- i n t e r e s t g u i l t y p l e a a t a p l e a a c c e p t a n c e h e ar i n g c o n d u c t e d in September of

2002. At the plea ac ce p t an ce hearing, the trial court thoroug hly discussed the nature of the Def endant’ s g uilty plea with him bef ore a cce pting the ple a. The Def endant a cknowledg ed that he
un de rs too d h e wa s w a ivi ng his ri g ht t o a tria l and to an a

pp e a l of his c on vic tio n. Th e De fe nd a nt a lso stated that he w as satisfied with the perf ormanc e of his attorney , denied be ing c oerc ed into acc epting the plea a g ree ment, and stated that he was not in nee d of any “mental tre atment.” At the c onclusion of theple a -a c c e ptanc e he ari ng the tria l cou rt state d: “It is the op ini on of thi s c ou rt , a ft e r v isi tin g wi th Mr . M y e rs a ndwo rking wi th h im this mornin g , th a t heha s e nte re d th is ple a kn ow ing ly , v olu nta ri ly and under standably .” The court a cce pted the De fendant’s g uiltyplea and convicted the Def endant of a tte mpt e d r ape , a

Cla ss C fe lon y . T he De fe nd a nt wa s se nte nc e d to six y e ars ’ imp ri so nme nt a s a Rang e I , standard offende r, and a restraining order was issued prohibiting the Def endant f rom having any further contac t with the victim.
Wit h the finan c ia l assistance of relatives the Def

endant r etained c ounsel, and in June of 2003, fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r p o s t

- c o n v i ct i o n re l i ef

. T h e t ri al co u rten t er ed a p re l i m i n ar y o rd erfi n d i n g a colora ble claim, and the Def

endant rec eived a post-conviction evidentiary hearing in Nove mber of 2003. Whil e the transcript of this hearing is not included in the r ecor d on appea l, the trial court made ref ere nce to the he aring in its order denying the Def endant post-c onviction reli ef

. This order w as issued in Febr

uary of 2004, and it is included in the appe llate re cord. In the orde r, the trial c ourt clea rly and succ inctly

summarized th eD e f

e n d an t’ s post-conviction issues, summarized the evidenc e prese nted, and c oncluded that the Def endant failed to prove by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that he wa s entitled to post-conviction relief

.T he D ef endan t r ai s es t wo s epar at e s ub- i s s ues i n h i s i s s ues nu mb er ed t wo and f i ve, wh i ch we l abel 2a, 2b, 5a, 2 and 5b , and ad d res s separat el y i n t hi s o p i ni o n. A d d i t i o nal l y , the t hree s ub

- i ss ues out l i ned i n t he D efend ant ’ s i ss ue n u m b e r six a re re p e tit ive o f cla im s ra ise d e lse w h e re , an d a re the re fo re no t ad d re sse d se p a ra te ly b y this C o u rt. -3- On Octobe r 5, 2004, the De fendant simul taneously filed an untimely

notice of a p p eal and mot ion s f or app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l a nda de c laratio n o f i nd ig e nc y

wi th b oththetria l c ou rt

a ndthi s Court. He also filed a

motion to accept a

late-f iled notice of appea l w ith this Court. On Octobe r 13, 2 0 0 4 , t h i s C o u rtg r a n t e d t h e D e f e n d a n ta w a i v e r o f t h e t i m e l y

f i l i n g o f h i s n o t i c e o f

ap p e a l

. In J anuary of 2005, this Court issued a second or der de ny ing t h e De fe n d ant’s request for a ppointed counsel for

this appeal. The order

noted that the trial c ourt lost jurisdiction to appoint counsel whe n the notice of appea l was filed. This Court declined to appoint counse l because the De fendant had reta ined counse l in the post-conviction proce eding s, had alre ady filed a pr o-se a

ppellate brief, a nd the re cord w as devoid of any order decla ring the Def

endant indig ent.
AN AL YSI S The De fendant has submitted an appellate brief w ith no citation to the recor d, no direc t c itatio n to ap pl ica bl e auth oriti e s, a ndin w hic h th e ma jority of theiss ue s r a ise d w e reno t pr op e rl y p r e s e r v e d f

o r ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w o r ar e n o t c o g n i z ab l e i n a p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, be c aus e theDe fe nd a nt p ro vid e d a n in a de qu a te re c or d, thi s Co urt is un abl e to ad dr e ss tho se constitutional iss ues raised by the Def endant that are proper for consider ation in a post-conviction proce eding . Acc o rd i n gl y , we a re una ble to addre ss on the merits any of the issues raised by

the De fe nd a nt i n th is a

pp e a l.
TheD e f e n dant’s appe llate brief

outlines eig ht separate claims, seve ral of w hich contain more than one issue or

are repe titive of prior claims. The Defendant asserts the foll owing : (1) there wa s 2 ins uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to f

ind h im guilt y

of ra pe ; ( 2a ) the De fe nd a nt w a s in c omp e te nt t o s ub mit a g uiltyplea; (2b) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive by coer cing the Def endant into submitti ng a g uiltyplea; (3) the D efe ndant’s ar

rest wa s illega l; (4) the State failed to turn over evidenc e the De fendant was inf orme d o f; (5 a ) t

ri a l c ou ns e l pr ov ide d ine ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l by

no t c ommun ic a tin g wi th the Def endant; (5b) reta ined post-conviction counse l provided ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel; (6) beca use his trial counsel and post-conviction counsel wer e incompetent and the State failed to turn over evidence , the Defenda nt was denie d his right to an a ppeal; (7) the Def

endant wa s denied due pr oc e ss b e c aus e of

a n “ ill e g a l c on sp ir acy ” be tw e e n th e State , th e tria l c ou rt a nd“ bo th d e fe ns e attorney s” to conv i ct h i m ; and (8) the trial court f ailed to provide him with a fair post-conviction evidentiary

hearing.
I. Stand ard of Review To s u s t ai n a petiti on for post-c onviction relief, a defe ndant must prove his or her fac tual alleg ations by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e at an evidentiary hearing. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 40- 30-110(f ); Momon v. St ate, 18 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tenn. 1999). U pon revie w, this Court will not reweig h or re -eva luate the e vidence below; all questions c oncerning the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value to be g iven their testimony , and the f actua l issues raised by

the evidenc e ar e to be resolved by the trial judge , not the appellate courts. See Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 156; Henley v. State,“I ss ues whi ch are not supp o rt ed b y argum ent , ci t at i o n t o aut ho ri t i es, o r ap p rop ri at e ref erences t o t he reco rd 3

w ill b e tre a te d a s w a ive d in this c o u rt.”

“T h e b rie f o f the a p p e llan t sh a ll c o n ta in .

. . [a ]n a rg u m e n t, w h ic h m a y b e p re c e d e d b y a su m m a ry o f ar g u m e n t, 4
set t i ng fo rt h t he co nt ent i o ns o f the ap p el l ant wi t h res p ect t o t he i ss ues present ed , and t he reasons t herefo r, i ncl ud i ng t he reasons why t he co nt ent i o ns requir e ap p el l at e rel i ef , wi t h ci t at i o ns t o t he aut ho ri t i es and ap p rop ri at e ref erences t o t he
r ecor d (w hi ch may be quot ed ve r bat i m) r el i ed on. ”

T he D efend ant do es l i st s everal cases at the e n d o f e a c h o f hi s ei ght cl ai m s. H o wever, t here i s no nexus 5 b et ween t he cases l i st ed and t he p o rt i o n of t he argum ent the cases p urpo rt ed l y s up p o rt

. A d d i t i o nal l y , no p age num b ers ar e ci t ed t o i n di ca t e wh i ch por t i on of t h e ca s e t h e D ef

en dan t bel i ev es r el ev an t t o h i s cl ai m. Fu r t h er mor e, t h e ca s es l i s t ed, nearl y al l U ni t ed Stat es Sup rem e C o urt cases , s eem t o have b een c h o se n a t r and o m
. M any o f t he cases ci t ed by t he D ef endan t per t ai n t o feder al ha beas cor pus procee di ng s and f ew ar e rel eva nt t o any of t he many broad cl ai ms a l l ege d b y the D e fen d a n t. -4- 96 0 S. W.2 d 5 72 , 5 78 -7 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) . T he tria l ju dge’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t ona pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief ar e af

ford ed t h e we i gh t of a jury verdic t and ar e conc lusive on appea l unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst those finding s. See Momon, 18 S.W .3d at 156; H enley , 960 S.W .2d at 578.
II. Issu es Not P roperly Before this Cou rt The De fendant raises sev er al i ssues which, while pr oper f or re view in a dire ct appe al, can no t bec oll a te ra lly

pu rs ue d th rou gh a po st- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g . T he De fe nd a nt a lso faile d to properly cite to the re cord or

to appropriate authorities in all of the issues he raised on a ppeal.
A. F ailure to citeto the r ecor d or to authorities Th is C ou rt

req uir e s th a t th e De fe nd a nt o n a pp e a l pr e se nt an a

rg ume nt, make app ro priate re fe re nc e s to the re c or d, a nd c ite re le va nt le g a l auth ority in s up po rt

of his arg ume nt. Se e Te nn . Ct

. Cr im. Ap p. R. 10( b)

. Ad dit ion a lly , a ll T e nn e sse e app e llate c ou rt s r e qu ir e theapp e llant’ s b ri e f t o 3
c on ta in an a

rg ume nt, c itatio ns to a

uth oriti e s, a nd app ro priate re fe re nc e s to there c or d. Se e Te nn . R. App. P. 27(a)( 7). Failure to c omply with the se basic rules will or dinarily constitute a waiver of the 4 iss ue . Se e Te nn . Ct

. Cr im

. App. R. 10 (b ); State v. Th omp so n, 36 S.W. 3d10 2, 10 8 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 2000).
I n his br ie f, the De fe nd a nt make s no re fe re nc e to the re c or d an d fa ils to “ c ite ” to a uth ority in support of his arg ument. Under these c ircumstance s we a re not oblig ated to revie w t hese issues 5
a s th e y arepr e se nte d. Se e State v. Ke lle r, 81 3 S. W.2 d 1 46 , 1 50 (T enn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ) ( “ B a ld
assertions unaccompa nied by leg al ar g ument or citati o n s t o au thorities are waived” ). This Court could overlook these def

iciencie s if the Def

endant prese nted cog nizable post-c onviction c laims and p r o v i d e d a n ap p e l l a t e r e c o r d s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o p e r l y r e v i e w t h e tr i a l c o u rt ’ s f i n d i n g s
. U n f

o rt u n a t e l y, theDe fe nd a nt h a s f

a ile d inthe se re sp e c ts a s w e ll.
B. Issu es not subject t o post-conviction relief A collater al attack on a conviction or sente nce unde r Tenne ssee’ s post-conviction proce dure act is limite d t o claims that alleg e an “ abridg ment of any rig ht gua rante ed by

the Constitut ion ofW hi l e t h i s ca s e ci t ed t o an ea r l i er v er s i on of t h e pos t

- con v i ct i on pr oce du r e ac t t h an t h at n ow i n ef fec t , t he 6
g en er al pr i n ci pl e for w h i ch t h e ca s e i s c i t ed i n t h i s opi n i on r ema i n s v al i d. -5- Tenne ssee or

the Constitut ion of

the United States” that rende r the c onviction or sentenc e void or voidable. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103. This Court has pre viouslyruled that a “post-convic tion proce eding is available f

or all potential constitutional claims except those which ha ve bee n waived or pre vious l y d etermined.” Wooden v. State, 898 S.W .2d 752, 754 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. 6 Ad dit ion a lly , p os t- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g s “ c a nn ot b e us e d a s su bs titute s f or dir e c t app e a ls, or

to t e st the suffic iency

of the c onvicting e vidence , or to re-litigate matters of fa ct alre ady put to rest upon the trial. Post-convict i o n petitions properly g o only to constituti onal rig hts’ abridg ments in the conviction proc ess.” Sloan v. State, 477 S.W.2d 219, 220 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971).
P o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s ar e e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t t o D e f

e n d a n t s w h o h a v e p l e d g u i l t y, there by waiving their rig ht to a direc t appea l. Our supre me court noted th at “[ f]ailing to pre serve an appe al from a

pl ea of g uiltyg ener ally

fore closes any

direc t attack upon suc h a plea , but if the
err ors of whic h the def

endant is complaining are of Constitut ional dimensions, post-conviction proce eding s are available .” State v. McClintock, 732 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn. 1987) (internal
c itatio ns omi tte d) . How e ve r, the su pr e me c ou rt a lso c lari fi e d th a t “ [p]os t c on vic tio n r e lie f i s n ot a forum to re view er

rors of la w as a

substitut e for

direc t appea l.” I d. at 272.
T h e D e f e n d a n t r a is e s f

o u r is s u e s th a t ar e n o t c o g n iz ab le in a p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n p r o c e e d in g
. We ag ain not e that the Defenda nt’s conviction rests upon his “best int ere st” g uilty plea. The Def endant arg ues in his first claim that the “a vailable e vidence ” would prove his “fac tual and ac tual innocenc e.” Howeve r, it is w ell-settled law that “post-convic tion procee dings may not be employ ed to question
or re view or te st the sufficienc y of the evidence

. . . .” My ers v. State, 462 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970). I n his third issue, the Defe ndant argue s that he wa s subjected to an “ illega l
arr est.” How ever , while such a claim would be a “prope r subject[] for dire ct appe al,” it is not the type of c laim appropriately raised in a post-conviction proceeding For rest v. State, 535 S.W .2d 166, 167 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). L ikewise, the D efe ndant’s ar g ument in claim number four that he wa s no t g iv e n im me d iatea c c e s s to e v id e n c e is n o t p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th is Co u rt. E v id e n ti ar y is s u e s are valid subjects for a direct appea l, but g ener ally not for a post-conviction proceeding

. See id. The Def endant a lso alleg es in the sec ond issue contained in his c laim numbe r five that he was de nied the
e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of c ou ns e l du ri ng his po st- c on vic tio n pr oc e e din g s. Ho we ve r, be c aus e the reis no constitutional or statutory rig h t t o t h e ef

fec tive assistance of counse l in a post-conviction proce eding , this iss ue also can not be raised in an appea l f rom a denial of post-c onviction relief. See House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705, 712 (Tenn. 1995).
It is clea r from the arg uments the Defenda nt makes in the above-re fer ence d claims that he is attempting to use this a

ppeal to introduc e evidenc e which he believes proves he was not guilty of the crime of attempted rape
. Howeve r, the Def endant waived both his right to for ce the State prove he wa s g uiltyand his rig ht to appeal a g uilty verdic t when he acc epted the plea ag ree ment and pled g uil ty . It is we ll- se ttl e d la w that a de fe nd a nt m a y

no t li tig a te his g uil t or i nn ocen ce in a po stconviction proc eeding . See Workman v. State, 868 S.W.2d 705, 711 (Tenn. C ri m
. App. 1993).It ap p ears t hat t he co p y of t he p o st

- co nvi ct i o n pe t i t i o n co nt ai ned i n t he t ech n ic a l r eco rd i s i nco m p l et e. T he 7 pet i t i on i n t h e r ec or d c on t ai n s t wo pag es , bu t t h e l as t pag e i s m ar k ed “ 4. ” T h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s or der de n y i n g pos t

- con v i ct i on rel i ef i nd i cat es t hat thr ee i ss ues were rai sed, b ut the p o st

- co nvi ct i o n p et i t i o n in t he reco rd o nl y a d d res ses the f i rs t of t he t h r ee c l ai ms con s i der ed by t h e cou r t

. O u r r u l es of pr oce du r e pr ov i de for t h e cor r ec t i on or modi f i ca t i on of

t h e r ec or d. See T enn
. R. Ap p. P

. 24(e)

. H owever , t he D ef endan t di d not fol l ow t hes e r ul es
. W e n ot e br i ef l y t hat t he D ef

endan t ha s at t ached a s i zab l e st ack o f d o cum ent s t o his a p p el l at e b ri ef w hi ch he has l ab el ed a n a p p end i x, b ut he fai l ed to fo l l o w t he
r u l es for a t t ac h i n g s u ch docu men t s i n a man n er i n w h i ch t h ey w i l l be come pa r t of t h e r ec or d. Se e T en n
. R. App. P. 28. It i s set t l ed l aw t hat do cum ent s m erel y at t ached t o ap p el l at e b ri ef s canno t be co nsi d ered b y t hi s C o urt be cause t hey are n o t p ro p e rly p a rt o f t h e c e rtifi e d re c o rd . S e e S ta te v. M a tthe w s, 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 3 -8 4 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ).
-6- Acc ording ly , we a

re una ble to addre ss a ll of the Def endant’ s claims outlined a bove beca use they are not proper issues f

or a post-c onviction proce eding

. III. Issu e Waived; Not

P roperly P rese rved for Appellate Revie w I n h is c la im n umb e r s e ve n, theDe fe nd a nt a rg ue s th a t hewa s d e nie d h is rig ht t o d ue pr oc e ss be c aus e of

a n “ un c on sti tut ion a l a ndill e g a l c on sp ir a c y by thepr os e c uti on , th e jud g e , a ndbo th defe nse attorney s to convict, sentenc e and imprison an innoc ent def endant.” Whil e his ac cusations of conspira cy

are not supported by

any citations to the rec ord or r elevant authority , his claim of a Constit utional due process violation may qualify as a va lid post-conviction issue. Nonetheless, the Def endant f ailed to raise this issue “in [his] post-conviction petition” and ther efor e it “may not be raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al.” State v. Tow nes, 56 S.W.3d 30, 35 (T en n . Crim. App. 2000) (r e ve rs e d o n o the r g ro un ds ). Se e a lso Te nn . Co de An n. § 40- 30 -1 06 (g ) ( “ A g ro un d f or re lie f i s waived if the petitioner pe rsonally

or throug h an attorney failed to pr esent it for de termination in any proce eding befor e a c ourt of compe tent jurisdiction in which the g round could ha ve bee n prese nted . . .”).
I n this case, the a ppellate r ecor d does not indicate that the issue o f a “c onspiracy ” wa s prese nted to the trial court in the petition f or post-convic tion relief. The copy of the post-c onviction petition, the State’s answ er to this petition, and the trial court’s order addressing the issues raise d

7 during the post-conviction proc eeding s all indicate that the c onspiracy claim was not raised until the Def endant’ s appea l to this Co u rt

. Additionally , the Def endant ha s failed to point to any evidenc e in the re c or d to su bs ta nti a te his c lai ms of a du e pr oc e ss v iol a tio n. Ac c or din g ly , th is i ssu e is a lso deeme d waived. IV. Issues Waived; F ailure to P rovide a Rec ord The De fendant raises thre e claims that are proper issues befor e this Court on an appe al of a denial of post-c onviction relief. T wo of these iss ues, an “ incompetent” g uiltyplea and ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, we re a ddresse d by the trial court in its post-conviction orde r. The third issue, alleg ing the Def

endant wa s not affor ded a “full and fair evidentiary hearing” at his post-conviction he ari ng , is raise d f

or thefi rs t ti me on app e a l. H ow e ve r, weareun ableto a dd re ss the me ri ts o f the se c la ims be c aus e the re c or d is inc omp le te . The De fe nd a nt h a s f a ile d to pr ov idea

tr a ns c ri pt o f h is p os tconviction hea

ring

.“[ T ]t he ap p el l ant s hal l have p repa red a t rans cri p t o f such p art of t he evi d ence o r proc eed i ngs as i s necessar y 8
t o c on v ey a f ai r , a ccur at e and c ompl et e ac cou n t of w h at t r an s pi r ed wi t h r es pec t t o t h os e i s s u es t h at a r e t h e bas es of
a p p e a l.”

T he t r i al cour t f ur t her s t at ed t hat b as ed on t he ev i dence p r es ent ed at t he pl ea agr eement he ar i ng , “ t r i al coun s el 9 woul d h ave f ai l ed hi s r es po ns i bi l i t y as l ega l couns el , had he not r ecomm ended t hat t he pet i t i oner ac cept t he s t at e’ s offer

. . . . ” -7- When a def

endant se eks appe llate re view the de fendant bear s the d uty to prepa re a rec ord which conve y s a fair, ac curate and c omplete ac count of w h at t ra nspired with re spect to the issues forming the basis of his or he r appe al. See Te nn. R. App. P. 24(b); State v. Ba llard, 855 S.W.2d 8 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993) . When the rec ord is inc omplete beca use it fails to contain a transcript of a proce eding rele vant t o an is sue or issues prese nted for r eview on a ppeal, this Court is preclude d from considering those issues. See B allard, 855 S.W.2d at 561. Moreove r, abse nt the nece ssary rele vant materia l in the r ecor d, we cannot consider the merits of an issue and must “c onclusively presume the judgme nt of the trial court was cor rec t.” Matthews, 805 S.W.2d at 784. See also State v. Dr aper , 800 S.W .2d 489, 493 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (“In summary , a d efe ndant is eff ectively denied appell at e re view of an issue when the r ecor d transmitted to the appellate court doe s not contain a tr a ns c ri pti on of

there le va nt p ro c e e din g s inthetrial cou rt ”). F urthe rm or e , w e no te that “ [p]r o s e appellants are require d to c omply with the rele vant statutes, rules and common law just as those w ho
are repr esente d by

counsel.” Keller , 813 S.W .2d at 150.
The trial c o u rt m ade de tailed finding s of fa ct on the issues of an “incompete nt” plea and ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel. As to the Defenda nt’s arg ument in claim number 2a that he wa s incompetent to e nter a

g uiltyplea, the trial court c oncluded that he “failed to prove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that his guilty plea wa s entere d unknowing ly , involuntary , or incompete ntly .” Reg arding the Def

endant’s ar gu m en ts in claim five and the se cond part of claim two that his trial counsel was ineffe ctive, the trial court first found that his “ counsel’s advice to a cce pt the state’s off er was re asonable based on the circ umstances and evidenc e in this case.” T hus, the trial court found t h e D ef en d an tfa i l ed t o es t ab l i s h t h ath i s co u n s el wa s i n ef fe ct i v e f o r c o er ci n g h i mi n t o ac ce p t i n g a plea a g ree m ent. The trial c ourt also found that testimony by the Def endant’ s sisters that trial 9 counsel wa s ineffe ctive for not c ommunicating or

spending enoug h time with the Defe ndant was not
c re dib le

. Ra the r, the c ou rt de te rm ine d the ir te sti mon y to b e “ dir e c tly

re fu te d b y

tria l c ou ns e l w ho se testimonythe court finds cre dible and re asonable in light of a ll the evidencein this case.”
The trial c ourt conc luded that the De fendant “fa iled to car ry his burden by

clea r and convincing evidenc e that trial c ounsel was inef fec t i v e, o r that his guilty plea wa s entere d inv olu nta ri ly or un kn ow ing ly .” Ab se nt a trans c ri pt of the po st- c on vic tio n e vid e nti ary he ari ng , th is Court must presume the judge ment of the trial c ourt is corre ct. Acc ording ly , the Def endant’ s issues perta ining to inef

fec tive assistance of counse l and an incompe tent g uiltyplea a re w aived.
Th e De fe nd a nt a lso a lle g e s in his fi na l c la im that hewa s d e nie d h is d ue pr oc e ss rig ht t o a fair hearing at the p o s t -c o n v i ction hearing itself. H oweve r, without a transc ript or statement of w hat transpire d in the trial court wemu s t “c o n clusively presume that the ruling of the trial c ourt was-8-

corr ect, the e vidence was suff icient to support the defe ndant’s conviction, or the de fendant rec eived a fair and impartia l t ri al

. ” Draper , 800 S.W .2d at 493 (e mphasis added) . Ag ain, bec ause the Def e n d a n t f a il e d to p r o v id e a r e c o r d th a t c o n v e y e d a f a ir , a c c u r a te a n d c o mp le te a c c o u n t o f wha t tr a ns pir e d a t the po st- c on vic tio n he ari ng , we arec omp e lle d to fi ndhe ha s w a ive d th is i ssu e a s w e ll. Se e State v. Wal la c e , 6 64 S.W. 2d30 1, 30 2 (T e nn
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ) ( “ We w ill no t c on sid e r tho se i s s u es fo r w h i ch t h e r ec o rd i s i n ad eq u at e. Iti s n o tt h e d u t y o f t h i s C o u rtt o s o rto u tan d l ab o r t h ro u gh issues not properly

prese nted”)

. CO NC LU SION Ba sed on the a

bove re asoning and authority , we find the Def endant ha s waived e very

issue prese nted to this Court on appeal. We aff irm the judgme nt of the trial court de ny ing the Def endant post-conviction re lief.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE