### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs A pr il 5, 200 5 LAB RY AN T KIN G v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Montgom ery C ounty Nos. 39051 and 41153 Joh n H. Gasaway, II I, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01371-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Jun e 1, 2005

The Defendant, L aB ry ant King, pl ed guilty in 1998 to one count of selli ng over .5 g rams of c ocaine wi th i n 1 , 0 0 0 fe eto f a sc h o o l , a C l as s A fe l o n y . T h e D ef en d an tagr ee dt o b e s en t en ce das a R an ge I o f f e n d e r to f if te e n y e ar s . T h e D e f

e n d a n t s u b s e q u e n tl y

f il e df o r p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f

r a ising challeng es to his indictment, conviction and sentenc e. After a hearing thetrial court de nied re lief, and this appeal followed. We aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff 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.
L aB ry ant King , Tiptonvill e, Te nnessee , Pro Se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , A ssi stant A tt o rn e y G e ne ral; John Carn e y , Dis tric t Atto rn e y Ge ne ral; an d C. D a nie l B ro lli e r, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ral, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

The transcript of the D efe ndant’s g uilty plea, which was admitt ed at the Defe ndant’s Mar ch 4, 2002, post-conviction hea ring and madean exhi b i t there to, contains the following rec itation of fac ts in support of the Def endant’ s plea: [O] n the 8th day of J anuary , 1997, the State would offe r testimony by Ag ent Gi lle la ndof

theT. B .I

. that he ne g oti a te d the pu rc ha se of tw e nty -t wo po int

fi ve g rams of cr ack c ocainefor the amo u n t o f eleven hundre d dollars with this defendant and another person. It was tested and tested positive, f ield tested that day

and later sent to the T.B.I . and fie ld tested positive. This transac tion did occur in Apartment E- 15T enn es s ee C od e Annot at ed s ect i on 39- 17

- 43 2 i s t i t l ed “ D r ug - Fre e Sch oo l Zone - E nh anc ed cr i mi nal pena l t i es 1 for v i ol at i on s w i t h i n zon e. ” I t pr ov i des , amon g ot h er t h i n g s , t h at a v i ol at i on of T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on 39- 17- 41 7, wh i ch i l l ega l i zes t he s al e of cocai ne, “ s hal l be puni s hed one ( 1) cl as s i f i cat i on hi gh er ” t han i s ot her wi s e pr ovi ded b y s ec t i o n 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 1 7 wh ere t he sale i s m ad e w i t hin 1 ,00 0 f ee t o f a sc ho o l . S ee T en n. C o d e A nn . § 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 3 2 (b ). T hu s, b e c a u se o f t h e lo c a tio n a t wh ic h the D e fen d a n t so ld c o c a ine , he w a s c o n v ic te d o f an A felo n y inste a d o f a B felo n y. -2- of Lincoln Homes -- A-15 of Lincoln Homes which w as wit h i n a t h ousand fe et of B u rtS c h o o l i n M o n t g o m e ry C o u n t y. I n conjunction with making his plea, the Def endant attempted to rese rve a certified question of law reg ardingthe con s t i tu t i o n al i t y o f T en n es s ee C o d e A n n o t at ed s ec t i o n 3 9 -1 7 -4 3 2

. Ho wever, on direc t 1 appeal, this C ourt determined that the questi on had not been properly prese rved and dismiss ed the appeal. See State v. L ab ry ant King , No. 01C01-9811-CC-00456, 1999 WL 538492, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, J uly 1, 1999).
The re cord be forethis Court i s less than complete. Thetechnical rec ord does not contain the Def endant’ s orig inal petition for post-conviction re lief. It does, howeve r, contain two amended petitions, both filed pro se. The trial court’s written opinion disposi ng of the De fendant’s claims for re lie f pr ov ide s, “ Th e Pe tit ion e r ha s state d thr ou g h h is c ou ns e l th a t hede sir e d to pr oc e e d o nly a s to the alleg ations contained in his last amendme nt . . . filed

. . . on September 29, 2003.” The re cord does not otherwise ref

lect this narr owing of the De fendant’s issues.
Th e tria l c ou rt

fr a me d th e De fe nd a nt’ s is su e s inits writt e n o pin iona s f oll ow s: The Petitioner alleg ed tha t his sentence is illeg al bec ause heenter ed his plea to a Class B fe lony

with a rang e of punishment of 8 to 12 y ear s. The ar g ument is that the trial judg e had theability

to enhanc e the se ntenceto a C lass A upon a showing of a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Further the Petit ioner a lleg ed that the indictment wa s defe ctive in failing to alleg e a violation of T.C.A. 39-17-432. Further the Petitioner alleg ed that the indictment failed to a lleg e that the Petitioner possesse d the coc aine with intent to sell i t within 1000 feet of school. In other wor ds that the within 1000 fee t of the school re quired a mens rea of intent to sell. Further the Petitioner a lleg ed a violation of Appre ndi. Wi thin this arg ument is the alleg ation that the day for day sentenc e violates the 1989 A ct and de prives the Gove rnor of h i s rig ht to gr ant pard o n s . F in a ll y

th e Pe ti ti o n e r

ar g u e s th a t h e w a s s u b

je c t t o s e le c ti v e p r o secution becaus e he didno t r e c e ivea n o ff e r o f s e ttl e me nt s imi lar t o a fe w o the r d e fe nd a nts char g ed in the same sting ope ration.
Th e trial c ou rt

fo un d n o me ri t to a ny

of the se iss ue s and accor di ngly de nie d th e De fe nd a nt p os tconviction re lief.T hi s t rans cri p t has af f i xed t o i t a l ab el d esi gnat i ng i t “E xhi b i t # 1 0 4/2/ 0 4

. ” W e are unable t o dis cern, how ever, 2

w h a t p ro c e e d ing w a s h e ld o n A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 4 , o r fo r w h a t p u rp o se this tra n sc rip t b e c a m e a n e x h ib it. -3- The only testimonial proof in support of the Def endant’ s claims that is included in the rec ord be fo reus is c on ta ine d ina tr a ns c ri pt titl e d “ Partia l PCR he ari ng ” he ld o n M arc h 4 , 2 00 3. At thi s 2 he ari ng , th e so le wi tne ss w a s th e a tto rn e y wh o r e pr e se nte d th e De fe nd a nt i n c on jun c tio n w ith his g uiltyplea ( “Counsel”) . Counsel testified about her investigation into t he De fen d an t ’s case , the potential defe nses she considere d, and her conce rns about whe ther the D efe ndant should testify . She explained that the Def

endant determined to plead guilty when he became awa re that he could re serve the issue conce rning the constitutionalityof the statute whe reby his felony

class wa s upg rade d from a B to an Aa ndhis se nte nc e the re by inc re a se d: T e nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d se c tio n 3 9- 17 -4 32 . A lso influencing the Def

endant’ s decision was a videotape of his pa rticipation in the crime in whic h he was identifiable . Counsel also testified about her discussions with the Defe ndant about his sentenc e under s ec t i o n 3 9 -1 7 -432. S he stated that the Def endant “ wanted to plea

to a B and g o rang e two rathe r than plea

to an A at a

rang e one.” The State, howe ver, w ould not acce pt this pl ea. The trial c ourt issued its written opinion deny ing r elief on the Def endant’ s post-conviction pe tit iononMay

5, 20 04 . T he op ini onre fe re nc e s a he ari ng a t w hi ch th e De fe nd a nt m a de c la ims ab o u ts el ec t i v e p ro s ec u t i o n , b u tth e r ec o rd b ef o re u s d o es n o ti n cl u d e atra n s cr i p to f t h ath eari n g. I n this d i re ct ap peal, the D efe ndant sets forth in his pro se brief e leven issues for our c on sid e ratio n: I . Whether the post-c onviction judg e was constitutionally qualified and compe tent to preside. I I

. W h et h er Appellant knowing ly waived his rig ht to a constitutionallyqualified post-conviction judg e. I I I . D uty to i nq uir e int o kno wnc on fl ic t. I V. Whe the r thee vid e nc e of there c or d p re po nd e rate s a g a ins t th e fi nd ing of thepo stc on vic tio n c ou rt

. V. W hether

the post-conviction court opinion conflict[s ] wit h and misappre hends prior dec isions, propositi ons of law and principles of la w. VI . Whether the trial c ourt enter ed a void judg ement (sic)

. VI I . Whether the trial c ourt imposed a[n] illegal sentence

. VI I . Whether the indictment is defe ctive. IX. Whe the r T .C. A. § 3 9- 17 -4 32 is v iol a tiv e of theF if th, Sixth, a ndF ou rt e e [n]th Am e nd me nts of

theUn ite d St a te s Co ns tit uti ona ndAp pr e nd i. X. Whether T.C.A. § 39-17- 417 is a lesser inc luded offe nse of T.C.A. § 39- 17-432. XI . Whether Appe llant was deprived of his F o u rt ee n t h Amendment rig ht to equal protec tion.-4-

To sustain a petition fo r p o s t -conviction relief, a defe ndant must prove his or her fac tual alleg ations by

clea r and convincing evidenc e at an evidentiary hearing. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-110(f ); Momon v. State, 18 S.W .3d 152, 156 (Tenn. 1999). Upon revie w, this Court will not re

weig h or re-evaluate the evidenc e below; all questions conce rning the credibilityof witnesses, the weig ht and value to beg iven their testimony , and the f actua l issues raised by

the evidenc e ar e to be resolved by the t rial j udg e, not the appellate courts. See Mom on, 18 S.W .3d at 156; Henley v. State, 96 0 S.W. 2d 57 2, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 19 97 ). Th e tria l jud g e ’s fi nd ing s of fa c t on a pe titio n fo r pos tconviction re lief ar e af

forde d the weig ht o f a j u ry v er d ict and ar e conc lusive on appeal unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst those finding s. See Mom on, 18 S.W .3d at 156; Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 578.
W i th re s p ec tt o h i s fi rs t i s s u e, th e De fe n d an t s t at es i n h i s b ri ef th atth e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n j u d ge “wa s without authority

or jurisdiction to rende r a judg ment or pre side in the instant case beca use of his incompetenceand failure to obtain consent from the Appellant to pre side.” This Court takes judicial notice of the fac t that the Hon. Michae l R. J ones, the post-c onviction trial judgein this case, ha d b oththeauth ority

a ndthejuris dictionto r e nd e r a jud g me nt i n th is m a tte r. Th e tria l c ou rt did not need the D efe ndant’s conse nt to preside over the post-conviction proc eeding

. Fi n al l y , the De fe nd a nt’ s all egation s o f “ inc omp e te nc e ” areme re ly that a ndwi ll n ot b e c ou nte nanc e d b y thi s C o u rti n th i s p ro ce ed i n g. The De f endant a lso contends that “upon a ppointing Asst. Public Defe nder Russell A. Church to his case[,] t he Honor able Judge J ones possessed a duty to inquire into a conflict that ex isted betwee n him and the P ublic Def ender ’s Office.” The recor d befor e us contains no proof of any such alleg ed conf

lict. Moreover , the Def

endant ha s waived this issue by failing to file a motion to rec use. The De fendant is not e ntitled to relief on the basis of his alleg ations conce rning the post-conviction trial judg e. The De f e n d a n t n e xt c o n te n d s th a t “ th e e v id e n c e o f th e r e c o r do f

th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti on proce eding s preponde rate s ag ainst the fin d i n g of the post-c onviction court.” Themajority of the post-conviction trial court’s opinion deals with the l eg al i ssues raised by the Defendant, not factua l is s u e s . T h e o n ly

p o rti o n o f

th e o p in io n th a t d e a ls w ith f a c tu a l i s s u e s is th a t r e s o lv in g the Def endant’ s claim of sele ctive prose cution. The opinion indicates that, “ I n the hea ring , the Petitioner alleg ed that a fema le re ceive d favor able tre atment by the state in plea

neg otiations.” The trial court c oncluded, howe ver, that the proof did not support this alleg ation.
The re cord befor e us does not include a transcript of the hea

ring to which the trial c ourt was ref erring. A ccor dingly , we have no way of dete rmining w hether the proof a dduced at that hearing pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t th e tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o n th is i ssu e . It is theapp e llant’ s d uty to t rans mit a rec ord permitti ng o u r re v i ew of the issues raised. SeeState v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Tenn. 1993) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 24. When the rec ord is inc omplete and does not contain a transcript of the proc eeding s relevant to an issue prese nted for our revie w, this Court may

not consider the issue. See B allard, Supra . There fore , this iss ue is waive d.T h e D e fen d a n t inc lud e d w h a t h e p u rp o rts t o b e a c o p y o f h is ind ic tm e n t in an A p p e n d ix t o h is b r ie f. 3 D ocu men t s a t t ac h ed t o bri ef s ar e n ot cog n i za bl e as pa r t of a n a ppel l at e r ec or d. Se e St at e v . M at t h ew s , 805 S. W

. 2d 776, 7 8 3 -8 4 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). W h ile o u r R u le s o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u r e p e r m it a n a p p e llan t t o fi le a n a p p e n d ix co nt ai ni ng rel evant po rt i o ns o f a record , s ee T e n n. R

. A p p . P

. 28 , t he d o cum ent s m ust al so b e i ncl ud ed i n t he reco rd i t sel f

. See M at t hews at 78 3

- 8 4 (“ R ul e 2 8 , T enness ee R ul es of A p p el l at e P roce d ure, do es not co nt em p l at e at t achi ng a t rans cri p t of p roce ed i ngs t o a b ri ef w hen t he t rans cri p t ha s no t b een m ad e a p art o f the reco rd.”) M o reove r, ass um i ng fo r th e sa k e o f ar g u m e n t t h a t th e d o c u m e n t in c lud e d in th e D e fen d a n t’s A p p e n d ix is a n a c c u ra te c o p y o f his ind ic tm e n t, the c o u n t t o w h ic h the D e fen d a n t p le d g u ilt y p ro v id e s tha t “th e [ D e fen d a n t] u n la w fully, fe lo n io u sly a n d kn o w ing ly d id s el l a con t r ol l ed s u bs t an ce , t o- wi t : ov er . 5 g ms . of Coca i n e, as cl as s i f i ed i n Se ct i on 39- 17- 408 of t h e T en n es s ee Code A nno t at ed , t o an unde rcove r agent , wi t hi n 1,00 0 f eet of t he real p rop ert y that co m p ri ses a pub l i c o r pri vat e el em ent ary sc h o o l, m id d le sc h o o l o r se c o n d a ry sc h o o l, in v io la tio n o f T C A 3 9 -1 7 -4 1 7 a n d a g a ins t the p e a c e a n d d ign ity o f t h e S ta te of T enn es s ee. ” T hi s Co ur t ha s pre vi ous l y he l d t hat an i ndi ct ment cont ai ni ng s ubs t an t i all y sim i l ar l ang uag e s at i s f i es con s t i t u t i on al a n d s t at u t or y r equ i r eme n t s . Se e Ran dal l Edwi n Cobb v

. St at e, N o. W 2004- 00156- CC A- R3- H C, 2005 W L 3 9 6 3 7 9 , at *2 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., Ja c k so n , F e b . 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). -5- I n his f ifth issue on appeal, the Def endant questions the post-conviction tri al co u rt ’s conclusions of law . The De fendant raised leg al cha lleng es to h i s i n d i ctm ent and se ntence , specific all y conce rning the constitutionalityof Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-17-432 and wh e the r A pp re nd i v. Ne w J e rs e y , 530 U. S. 466 (2 00 0) , re qu ir e d ce rt a in l a ng ua g e in h is i nd ic tme nt. As to the De fe nd a nt’ s c omp la int s a bo ut h is i nd ic tme nt, it is not in the re c or d b e fo reus . 3 Acc ording ly , we a

re pr eclude d from analy zing the De fendant’s issues reg arding his indictment. As to the constitutionalit y

of sec tion 39-17-43 2 , t h e t rial court corre ctly noted that this Court has previously

found that statute to pass constitutional muster. See State v. Smith, 48 S .W.3d 159 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) ; State v. J enkins, 15 S.W .3d 914 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); State v. J ames David L amor Perry , No. E1999-00271- CCA-R3-CD , 2000 WL 1246577, at *3-4 (T enn. Crim. App., Knoxvi lle, Sept. 5, 2000). This issue is without m erit.
I n his six th i s s u e, t h e De fendant alleg es that his judgme nt of conviction is void. The De fe nd a nt b a se s th is c la im o n th e the ory that hi s se nte nce i s il legal

. As se t f orth i n mo rede ta il below, the De fendant’s sentenc e is not illegal. Moreover , there is nothing i n t h e rec ord bef ore us that indicates that the D efe ndant’s judg ment of convic tion is voi d. The De fendant is therefor e not e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is b a sis

. I n his seventh i s s u e, t h e Defendant c laims that his sentence is illeg al as be ing outside the Rang e I sentenc e for a Class B felony . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 112(a) (2) ( providing that the Rang e I sentenc e for a C lass B f elony is eig ht to twelve y ear s). The D efe ndant pled g uiltyto selling ov e r . 5 g rams o f c oc a inewi thi n 1 ,0 00 fe e t of a scho ol. Th e sa le of

ov e r . 5 g rams o f c oc a ineis a Class B fe lony . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417( c)( 1). Be cause the s ale was made w ithin 1,000 fe e t of a sc ho ol, theDe fe nd a nt’ s o ff e ns e “ sh a ll b e pu nis he d o ne (1 ) c la ssi fi c a tio n h ig her tha n is p r o v i d e di n § 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 1 7 ( b )

- ( i ) f o r s u c h v i o l a t i o n . ” T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 3 2 ( b )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the Def endant wa s subject to being sentenc ed for a Class A fe lony . The De fendant kne w that he wa s ple a ding gui lty

to a Cla ss Afe lon y

a t hi s g uil ty

ple a he ari ng . T he Ra ng e I

se nte nc e fo r a

Cla ss AIn a d d iti o n to c la im in g th a t his se n te n c e is i lleg a l, the D e fen d a n t cla im s tha t his se n te n c e w a s im p ro p e rly 4

e n h a n c e d un d e r A p p re n d i v. N e w J e rs e y, 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ) a n d B la k e ly v . W a sh ing to n , 1 2 4 S .C t. 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ). W e not e t hat t he D ef

endan t r ece i ved t he mi ni mum se nt en ce in R an ge I for a Cl as s A fel ony . H i s cl ai ms a bo ut i mp r op er e n h a n c e m e n t ar e the re fo re w itho u t m e rit. -6- felony is fifteen to twe nty -five y ear s. See id. § 40-30-112( a)( 1). The Def endant’ s sentenc e is not ill e g a l. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

4
Inh is e ighth issue, the D efe ndant ar g ues that his indictment is constitut ionally defe ctive. The po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

fo un d th a t th e De fe nd a nt’ s in dic tme nt i s c on sti tution a lly va lid . A s se t f

orth previously , the re cord be foreus does not contain a copy of the indictment. This issue is therefor e waived.
I n his ninth i ssue, the De fendant contends that Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 39-17-432 i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l

. T h e D e f e n d a n ti s m i s t ak e n . S e e S m i th , J e n k i n s , a n dP e rry. I n issue numb e r

te n , the Def

endant que stions whether Te nnesseeCode Annotated se ction 39- 17-417 is a lesser -included of fenseof sec tion 39-17-432. It is not. Section 39-17-432 doe s not set forth a criminal offe nse, it simplyprovides for the enhanceme nt of punishment upon the commission of particular off

enses within particular g eog raphic locations. See Smith, 48 S .W.3d at 167. Si nce se c t i o n 3 9

- 1 7

- 4 3 2 d o e s n o t c r e a t e a n o f f e n s e , i t c a n n o t c o n t a i n a n y l e s s e r o f f e n s e s . T h i s i s s ue is without merit. Finally , the Def

enda n t al l eg es that he w as deprived of his Fourteenth Amendme nt equal protec tion rights bec ause his prose cution was aimed at m ember s of his rac e. The re is no proof in the re c or d to su pp ort th is alle g a tio n andtheDe fe nd ant i s th e re fo ree nti tle d to no re lie f o n th is b a sis

. We affirm the judgme nt of the post-convic tion trial court.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE