### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENN ESSEE v. TIMOTHY CA STERLOW

Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 98-14186
No. W2001-03112-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 8, 2002

ORDER
The defendant was convicted by a jury of

the offense of rape of a child. He was sentenced to serve a term of 20 years in the De partment of C orrection. In this appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the co nvicting e vidence and he a lleges re versible error resulting from a allegation that prospective trial jurors were told that they could donate their compensation for jury ser vice to the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund. We find the evidence of the defendant’s guilt to be more than suff icient to s ustain the

verdict
. Moreover, the defendant has fail ed to raise by prope r proceeding the issue of w

hat the ju ry was tol d regard

ing donating its comp ensation . We acc ordingly affirm the judgme

nt of the tr

ial cour t pursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th

e Court of Criminal A

ppeals. Sufficiency The record in the instant case reveals that the victim, under the a ge of thirteen years, testified at trial tha t the def endant pe netrate d her vaginally on virtually a daily basis from June 1, 1996, until August 26, 1998. Sh

e also told

staff at the sexua

l assault c ente r that the defendant penetrated her anus. A registered nurse at the Memphis Se

xual Assa ult Resour

ce Cente r testified that the

victim had redness and swelling in the vaginal area as well as anal scarring and dilation. These injuries are consistent with sexual abuse. This evidence is morethan suff icient to s ustain

a verdict of guilt of rape of a child and hence the defe ndant’s c laim with r

espect t o this issue

is meritle ss. Improper Communication to Prospective Jurors This issue relates to a claim that the jury venire was told that they could d onate th eir compensation for jury service to the victims’ compensation fund. However, w e are un able t o consider this claim

because it is not pro

perly before the

Court in thi s appeal
.-2-

First, this issue was not raised in the motion for a new trial and can be considered waived. Tenn. R. App. 3( e). Secondly, the o nly docume ntation of fered t o support t

his claim is an attachment to the defendant’s bri ef which cons ists of a po rtion of a transcr ipt in a who lly separ

ate cas e indicating the alleged

communication to jury panels about donating their compensation is common in Shelby County. There h as been no attempt o n the par t of the de fendant to substan

tiate thisclaim at a hearing on a

motion for new trial nor in a petition for a writ of error coram nob is . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105. The attachmen t to the defe ndant’s b rief in a wholly unr

elated p roceed ing is utterly inadequate for

appellate review without it having been made a part of the record on appeal in this case. See, State v. Matthews , 805 S.W.2d 776, 783 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm

the j udgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Cr

iminal App eals.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

____________________________________ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE