 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reed7/7/1999
. App. 1997); State v. Griffis; 964 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Smith, 891 S.W.2d 922, 932 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). When the record is incomplete, or does not contain the proceedings relevant to an issue, this Court is precluded from considering the issue. Gibson, 973 S.W.2d at 244; Griffis; 964 S.W.2d at 592-93; Smith, 891 S.W.2d at 932. Furthermore, this Court must conclusively presume that the ruling of the trial court was correct in all particulars. Gibson, 973 S.W.2d at 244; Smith, 891 S.W.2d at 932. In this case, Appellant has failed to fulfill his duty of preparing a record that is a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired in the trial court with respect to sentencing. Therefore, this Court must presume that the trial court's imposition of a five year sentence was correct. See Gibson, 973 S.W.2d at 244; Smith, 891 S.W.2d at 932. This issue has no merit.
V. DENIAL OF PROBATION
Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to impose probation.
Initially, we note that Appellant was eligible for probation under the 1982 Sentencing Act because he received a sentence of ten years or less and he was not convicted of certain enumerated offenses. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303(a) (1982). Appellant was also eligible for probation under the 1989 Sentencing Act because he received a sentence of eight years or less and he was not convicted of certain enumerated offenses. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-303(a) (1989). In addition, the trial court was required to consider probation as an alternative to confinement under both the 1982 and 1989 Sentencing Acts. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-303(b) (1982), 40-35-303(b) (1989).
Appellant contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the record does not indicate whether the trial court considered probation and if it did, what factors it relied on in denying probation. However, as previously stated, Appellant had the duty to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired in the trial court with respect to the issues on appeal. Gibson, 973 S.W.2d at 244; Griffis; 964 S.W.2d at 592; Smith, 891 S.W.2d at 932. Because Appellant has failed to fulfil this duty, this Court is precluded from considering this issue and we must conclusively presume that the trial court properly denied probation. See Gibson, 973 S.W.2d at 244; Smith, 891 S.W.2d at 932. This issue has no merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|