IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1998 SESSION March 26, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
DAVID W. FELTS, )
)
Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9708-CR-00333
)
v. ) Morgan County
)
CHARLES JONES, Warden, )
and STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Hon. E. Eugene Eblen, Judge
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
DAVID W. FELTS JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General & Reporter
M.C.R.C.F.
P.O. Box 2000 TIMOTHY F. BEHAN
Wartburg, TN 37887-2000 Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
CHARLES E. HAWK
Dist. Attorney General
FRANK HARVEY
Asst. Dist. Attorney General
P.O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED: _____________
AFFIRMED
CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, David W. Felts, appeals the Morgan County Criminal
Court's summary denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. According to
his petition, Felts is presently serving a 23-year incarcerative sentence following his
guilty pleas to the crimes of aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. He
alleges he is entitled to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus because the
indictments against him fail to allege a culpable mens rea. He also claims the lower
court should have appointed counsel and conducted a hearing prior to ruling on his
petition. We affirm the judgment of the court below.
The petitioner has failed to include the relevant indictments in the
record on appeal. As the appellant, he has the duty to ensure that the record on
appeal contains all of the evidence relevant to those issues which are the bases of
appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); State v. Banes, 874 S.W.2d 73, 82 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1993); State v. Deborah Gladish, No. 02C01-9404-CC-00070 (Tenn. Crim.
App., Jackson, November 21, 1995), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1996). In the
absence of such a record, the affected issues are waived. State v. Oody, 823
S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “In the absence of an adequate record
on appeal, this court must presume that the trial court’s rulings were supported by
sufficient evidence.” Oody, 823 S.W.2d at 559.
Also, we have no basis for determining that the trial court erred in
dismissing the petition without appointment of counsel and a hearing. The Habeas
Corpus Act requires the court to review the petition and dismiss it and refuse to
issue the writ unless it indicates the petitioner's conviction may be void. See Tenn.
Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101, -109 (1980). If the writ is refused based on the failure of
the petition to raise a cognizable claim for relief, any need for a hearing is obviously
pretermitted because there is no justiciable issue before the court. See State ex rel.
Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280 (1963). Moreover, there is no
requirement in the Habeas Corpus Act that a petitioner be afforded appointed
2
counsel or the opportunity to amend the petition. See generally Tenn. Code Ann.
§§ 29-21-101 to -130 (1980 and Supp. 1996). Thus, the trial court did not err simply
because it did not allow a hearing, appointment of counsel and an opportunity for
amendment of the petition.
In sum, we find no error in the proceedings below. The trial court's
dismissal of Felts's habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
____________________________
CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
_______________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
3
State v. Felts
Combined Opinion