State v. Jerome Patrick Lyons

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 30, 1997
• Docket: 01C01-9603-CC-00119
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED MAY 1997 SESSION June 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9603-CC-00119 Appellee, ) ) Bedford County V. ) ) Honorable William Charles Lee, Judge ) JEROME PATRICK LYONS, ) (Speeding) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Jerome Patrick Lyons, Pro Se Charles W. Burson 200 7th Street - Bell Buckle Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 0622 Shelbyville, TN 37160-0622 Georgia Blythe Felner Counsel for the State Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William Michael McCown District Attorney General

Robert G. Crigler Assistant District Attorney General One Public Square, Suite 300 Shelbyville, TN 37160-3953

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge OPINION

The appellant, Jerome Patrick Lyons, was issued a speeding citation by

Trooper Inman of the Tennessee Highway Patrol for traveling 81 m.p.h. in a 55

m.p.h. zone. After a preliminary hearing, he was bound over to the grand jury by

the General Sessions Court. The grand jury indicted the appellant for speeding.

The appellant chose to represent himself at trial. The jury found him guilty of

speeding. The trial court entered judgment. The appellant appeals his

conviction raising the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court had prejudicial ex parte communications with the jurors;

2. Whether the speeding ticket was issued in violation of Tennessee's Constitution;

3. Whether the trial court was correct in refusing the appellant a trial at the General Sessions level;

4. Whether the district attorney general abused his discretion by having the appellant indicted by the grand jury; and

5. Whether the transmission of the record for appeal is complete.

This Court understands that as to pro se litigants, our criminal justice

system with all of its rules appears overwhelming. With this in mind, we attempt

to relax or bend the rules when confronted with pro se appeals. However, we

cannot break the rules. This Court is one of review and cannot properly address

the appellant's issues without a transcript or statement of the proceedings. It

was incumbent upon the appellant to prepare a record that included all material

necessary for disposition of his appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) & (c); State v.

Beech, 744 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Furthermore, the

appellant's issues are not supported by argument, citation to correct authorities,

or appropriate references to the record. Failing to do so results in a waiver of

these issues. Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App., Rule 10(b). Accordingly, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App., Rule 20.

-2- __________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

__________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

__________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

-3-