Court Opinion

ID: 9897659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:19:46.661399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.580381
License: Public Domain

11/02/2023
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                          AT JACKSON
                          Assigned on Briefs October 3, 2023

               STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HANK COOLEY, JR.

                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County
                     No. 19-951          Kyle C. Atkins, Judge

                            No. W2023-00073-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Hank Cooley, Jr., appeals from his best interest, guilty-pleaded
convictions for felony evading arrest risking death or injury, driving on a revoked license
(second offense), reckless driving, disobeying a traffic signal, violation of the light law,
speeding, and failure to exercise due care. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603(b)(3)(B) (2018)
(subsequently amended) (evading arrest), 55-50-504 (2020) (driving on a revoked
license), 55-10-205 (2020) (reckless driving), 55-8-110 (2020) (subsequently amended)
(disobeying a traffic signal), 55-9-402 (2020) (subsequently amended) (violation of light
law), 55-8-152 (2008) (speeding), and 55-8-136 (2020) (failure to exercise due care).
The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twelve years in
confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative
sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

  Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CAMILLE
R. MCMULLEN, P.J., and J. ROSS DYER, J., joined.

William J. Milam, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Hank Cooley, Jr.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Jody S. Pickens, District Attorney General; Albert Earls,
Assistant District Attorney General for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                        OPINION
       On September 9, 2019, a Madison County Sheriff’s deputy noticed flickering
brake lights on a black GMC truck driven by the Defendant. The deputy attempted to
stop the truck after it “switched lanes nearly striking two other vehicles.” With the
deputy in pursuit, the Defendant ran a red light and “nearly struck several vehicles” at an
intersection before driving onto Interstate 40. The Defendant sped through a construction
zone where workers were present and “passed several cars and tractor trailers in the
inside emergency lane.” The deputy disengaged his pursuit and the Defendant fled into a
neighboring county where other law enforcement officers continued the pursuit until the
Defendant wrecked.

       A Madison County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for felony evading arrest
risking death or injury, driving on a revoked license (second offense), reckless driving,
disobeying a traffic signal, violation of the light law, speeding, and failure to exercise due
care. The State filed a notice requesting enhanced punishment based upon the
Defendant’s prior convictions, including eleven felony convictions. On May 19, 2021,
the Defendant entered a best interest plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25 (1970), to all counts in the indictment with the length and manner of service of the
sentences to be determined by the trial court.

       At the May 19, 2021 guilty plea hearing, the Defendant acknowledged that he was
familiar with the charges against him, that his pleas were made knowingly and
voluntarily, that he had discussed the case with his lawyer, that he could be sentenced for
up to twelve years, that he was giving up his right to a jury trial, and that he had a right to
appeal his sentence. The court accepted the Defendant’s plea and set a sentencing
hearing for June 22, 2021. The record includes the guilty plea hearing transcript but does
not include the sentencing hearing transcript.

       On July 6, 2021, the trial court signed judgments which classified the Defendant
as a career offender for sentencing purposes and ordered him to serve an effective twelve-
year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On December 16, 2022, some
eighteen months later, the court entered an order granting the Defendant a delayed
appeal, staying post-conviction proceedings pending the results of the delayed appeal,
and appointing appellate counsel for the Defendant. The Defendant filed his notice of
appeal with this court on January 17, 2023.

       On March 16, 2023, the trial court clerk notified this court that no transcripts had
been filed with the clerk. This court entered an order on March 24, 2023, giving the
Defendant ten days to notify this court concerning the status of the appeal with an
explanation for the delay in the preparation of the transcripts. On April 13, 2023, this
court entered an order granting the Defendant’s motion to late-file the transcripts and
granted the Defendant an additional fifteen days in which to file the transcripts. On April

                                             -2-
25, 2023, the trial court clerk certified that the technical record and the guilty plea
transcript were transmitted to this court.

        On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying him
alternative sentencing. The State counters that the Defendant’s appeal is untimely and,
alternatively, is waived for his failing to include the sentencing hearing transcript in the
appellate record. The State argues that the Defendant’s January 17, 2023 notice of appeal
was untimely, as it was filed more than 30 days after the judgments of conviction were
entered on July 7, 2021. The State contends that the trial court’s grant of a delayed
appeal was improper because it did not comply with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.
The Defendant did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a reply brief responding to
this argument. See T.R.A.P. 27(c).

        The appellate record is insufficient for us to determine the basis for the trial
court’s post-conviction order granting the Defendant a delayed appeal of his sentencing.
However, “[i]n all criminal cases the ‘notice of appeal’ document is not jurisdictional and
timely filing of such document may be waived in the interest of justice.” T.R.A.P. 4(a).
In the interest of justice, we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal.

        The Defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of preparing a fair, accurate, and
complete account of what transpired in the trial court relative to the issues raised on
appeal. See State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983). “When the record is
incomplete, or does not contain the proceedings relevant to an issue, this [c]ourt is
precluded from considering the issue.” State v. Miller, 737 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1987). Likewise, if the appellate record is incomplete, “this [c]ourt must
conclusively presume that the ruling of the trial court was correct in all particulars.” Id.
(citing State v. Jones, 623 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); State v. Baron, 659
S.W.2d 811, 815 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 699 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1983)); see State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

        The appellate record contains the guilty plea hearing transcript, a presentence
report, and an order granting a delayed appeal as a form of post-conviction relief. The
record does not contain a sentencing hearing transcript or any pleadings relating to the
Defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The basis for the Defendant’s appeal is
that the trial court erred in sentencing. Although the presentence report provides
information regarding the Defendant’s social and employment history, prior criminal
convictions, mental health treatment, and risk of reoffending, nothing in the record
reflects the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing, any statement made by the
Defendant, the arguments of counsel, or the sentencing findings and determinations of the
court. Because the appellate record does not include information necessary to facilitate
appellate review of the Defendant’s sentence, we cannot determine whether the court
                                           -3-
abused its discretion when sentencing the Defendant. Therefore, we conclusively
presume that the sentencing determinations of the court were correct in all particulars.
Miller, 737 S.W.2d at 558. The Defendant is not entitled to relief.

        In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgments of the
trial court are affirmed.

                                            ____________________________________
                                            ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE

                                           -4-