 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson1/13/1999
MARCH SESSION, 1998
MADISON COUNTY
HON. JOHN FRANKLIN MURCHISON JUDGE
(Direct Appeal - Sentencing)
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
ORDER
On December 19, 1996, Appellant, Connie Lee Wilson, pled guilty to Driving After Having Been Declared an Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender and Driving Under the Influence . The Circuit Court for Madison County entered a show cause order as to why Appellant's probation for three previous D.U.I. offenses should not be revoked. On February 14, 1997, after a sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation on the prior offenses and sentenced Appellant to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the offense of Driving After Being Declared an Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender and to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served at 75% for the offense of Driving Under the Influence 5th offense. The trial court further ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to one of Appellant's sentences for a prior offense (indictment number 94-827). In this appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review:
(1) whether the trial court erred in running Appellant's sentence for the current offense consecutive to her sentence in indictment number 94-827.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ordering her sentence for the current offense to run consecutive to the sentence in indictment number 94-827. Appellant contends that the probationary period on 94-827 had run prior to the show cause hearing, effectively preventing the trial court from revoking her probation for that offense. Appellant has failed to present a record upon which this Court can determine the timing of her service of the prior sentences. Upon appeal, the burden of presenting to this Court a record which provides all necessary materials for Disposition of the issues on appeal rests on the appellant. Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 24; State v. Banes, 874 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (citing State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn.1983); State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn.1988)). Due to the incomplete nature of this record, this Court is precluded from considering this issue. See State v. Bennett, 798 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) cert denied, 500 U.S. 915, 111 S.Ct. 2009, 114 L.Ed. 2d 98 (1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Appellant may remain on ceurrent bond pending the timely filing and or Disposition of an laapplication f for permission to appeal. Costs of the appeal will be paid by the State.
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR: See Below JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE & GARY R. WADE, JUDGE.
Page 1 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|