IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
APRIL 1998 SESSION
FILED
May 1, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9707-CC-00244
Appellee, )
)
vs. ) HARDIN COUNTY No. 7480
)
)
GAYLEN AUBREA SCOTT ) AFFIRMED- RULE 20
)
Appellant. )
ORDER
The defendant, Gaylen Aubrea Scott, was convicted by a jury of three (3)
counts of driving without a valid driver’s license and two (2) counts of violating
the vehicle registration law. He was sentenced to thirty (30) days for each of the
driver’s license violations. One (1) of the convictions was ordered to be served
consecutively for an effective sentence of sixty (60) days. The sentences were
suspended, and the defendant was placed on unsupervised probation. No
sentence was imposed for the registration law violations.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the state failed to prove he must
be licensed to drive a car; that because he was not engaged in a commercial
activity when stopped, the state was “ultra vires” in arresting him; and that his
arrest was a ploy by the state to collect money from him in violation of various
sections of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.
The defendant was sentenced on June 4, 1997. He filed a notice of
appeal on June 27, 1997. No motion for new trial was filed. A defendant
wishing to appeal a conviction after a jury trial should file a written motion for new
trial within thirty (30) days of the date the order of sentence was entered. Tenn.
R. Crim. P. 33 (b). The thirty (30) day provision is jurisdictional, and an untimely
motion is a nullity. State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997). The trial
court, cognizant of the defendant’s intention to proceed on appeal pro se,
specifically explained to the defendant that he must file a motion for new trial
within thirty (30) days in order to appeal to this Court. The defendant indicated
that he understood. The defendant filed a notice of appeal, but not a motion for
new trial. When a motion for new trial is not timely made, this Court may only
consider issues which would result in the dismissal of the charges, sufficiency of
the evidence and sentencing. State v. Williams, 675 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1984). This Court may also consider plain errors affecting the
substantial rights of the defendant if review is necessary to do substantial justice.
State v. Maynard, 629 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981).
The defendant has also failed to make appropriate references to the
record as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 27 (g) and Rule 10 (b) of the Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the issues are waived. State v. Turner,
919 S.W.2d 346, 358 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d
228, 233 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
Evidence presented to the jury was clearly sufficient to support the
convictions. Officers testified that defendant was checked on three (3) separate
occasions and was unable to produce a driver’s license. On two (2) of those
occasions, the vehicle being driven by the defendant had an expired registration.
After a careful review of the record, we find no error committed by the trial
court regarding the convictions or sentencing.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in
accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As
it appears the defendant is indigent, costs of appeal are taxed to the state.
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
2
CONCUR:
_________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
_________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
3