Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-Cc-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On
This text of Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-Cc-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On (Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-Cc-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON APRIL 1998 SESSION
JOHN DERRICK COLEMAN,
Petitioner, ) ) FILED ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9707-CR-00291 ) April 23, 1998 vs. ) GIBSON COUNTY ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 2795 Appellate C ourt Clerk ) Respondent. )
ORDER
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s
petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner originally filed his petition in September
1994. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing and without appointing
counsel. On appeal, concluding that the trial court should have appointed counsel,
allowed counsel to file an amended petition, and, if necessary, afford the petitioner a
hearing on his petition, this Court reversed and remanded the order of the trial court.
Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-CC-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On
remand, after appointing counsel and hearing the merits of the petition, the trial court
again dismissed the petition. The petitioner, by and through counsel, filed a notice of
appeal to this Court.
The petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective and that the post-
conviction court’s actions and statements prejudiced the petitioner’s case. The
petitioner, however, has failed to include the transcript of the post-conviction hearing in
the record on appeal. T.R.A.P. 24(b). In such a case, the petitioner has waived the
affected issues and this Court, therefore, is precluded from conducting an appropriate
review on appeal. See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W .2d 557 (Tenn. 1993). Accordingly,
“[i]n the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this court must presume that the
trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d
554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). For this reason, we are unable to find any error in the proceedings below.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in
accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the record
reflects that the petitioner is indigent, costs of this proceeding shall be assessed to the
state.
Enter, this the ___ day of April, 1998.
__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
__________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
__________________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Coleman v. State, No. 02C01-9505-Cc-00122 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996). On, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-no-02c01-9505-cc-00122-tenn-crim-a-tenncrimapp-1998.