WPC 5# UN %O 0(U4}bw@ 0l 0D\ 0J 0T 0^> 0h 0r 0|v 0 0x 1u 0d} AQ 2 0D 0@< 0D| B D/ B D3) U>\ U* B) DC AM0 } v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($n~<$ @ d3|x- - UDUD9eDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd "0C << G !-  !"  ..   YYY FILED.X July17,1998CecilCrowson,Jr..AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . -  4   .\RA'\ћ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE ٜR120A1-j|Z`  `@Rߛ   ` XDpX ATJACKSOǸMAY1998SESSION  ` XDpX  ` D Q ` cSTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) `  c  )C.C.A.No.02C019709CR00339 Appellee, )  )ShelbyCountyV. )  )HonorableW.FredAxley,Judge   ) RALPHD.COOPER,  )(HabitualMotorVehicleOffender)  ) Appellant. )  ` FORTHEAPPELLANT: FORTHEAPPELLEE:RobertM.Brannon,Jr. JohnKnoxWalkupAttorneyatLaw AttorneyGeneral&Reporter295WashingtonAvenue Suite3 DouglasD.HimesMemphis,TN381031911 AssistantAttorneyGeneral 425FifthAvenueNorth Nashville,TN372430493  WilliamL.Gibbons DistrictAttorneyGeneral RosemaryAndrews AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral 201PoplarAvenue,ThirdFloor Memphis,TN38103 OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMED PAULG.SUMMERS, Judge ` p       7vXXdXXd7 OPINION    `  p Allegingthattheappellant,RalphD.Cooper,hadbeenconvictedofthreequalifyingvehicularoffensesduringafiveyearperiod,thestate,pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated5510601,filedapetitiononApril16,1997seekingtodeclaretheappellantahabitualmotorvehicleoffender.OnAugust26,1997,ahearingonthepetitionwasheld.Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourt,findingnomaterialdisputesoffact,grantedthestatespetitiondeclaringtheappellantahabitualmotorvehicleoffender. Theappellantpresentsfourissuesforourreviewonappeal:(1)whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoaffordhimatrialbyjury;(2)whetherthetrialcourterredbyfailingtograntacontinuancebaseduponhisfilingofapostconvictionpetitionattackingoneofthestatesqualifyingoffensesinitspetitiontodeclarehimahabitualmotorvehicleoffender;(3)whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoexcluderecordsoftheJuly2,1991convictionwhichwereofferedbythestateinsupportofitspetition;and(4)whetherthetrialcourterredinitsdeclarationofhimasahabitualmotorvehicleoffender,therebyviolatingthedoublejeopardyclauseoftheUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutions.Weaffirm. Inhisfirstissue,theappellantarguesthatthetrialcourtimproperlydeniedhisrequestforajurytrial.Hecontendsthattherearetwomaterialdisputesoffactwhichnecessitateajurytrial:whetherhisfilingofapostconvictionpetitioncreatedamaterialdisputeoffactandwhethertheRalphD.Cooperthatthestatewasattemptingtodeclareahabitualmotorvehicleoffenderwasinfacthim. Thestateassertsthatthetrialcourtproperlydeniedtheappellantsrequestforatrial.CitingStatev.Everhart,563S.W.2d795,79798(Tenn.Crim.App.1978),thestatemaintainsthat collateralattacksontheunderlyingconvictionsarenotproperatahabitualoffenderhearing.Itinsiststhattheappellanthadthreefaciallyvalidconvictionsatthetimeofthehearing.Therefore,therewasnomaterialdisputeoffactcreatedbythefilingofthepostconvictionreliefpetition. Withregardtotheappellantscontentionthatthestatedidnotestablishidentity,thestatearguesthattheappellant implicitlyadmittedtohisconvictions.Itnotesthatthetrialcourtcommentedduringthehearingthat thedefendanthasadmittedthathehasbeenpunishedoneachandeveryoneoftheconvictions.Thus,thestatemaintainsthatidentitydoesnotpresentamaterialdisputeoffactwarrantingajurytrial. Fromourreviewoftherecord,wemustagreewiththestate.Everhartplainlystatesthatcollateralattacksonconvictionsarenotproperatahabitualoffenderhearing.Furthermore,wefindnothingtoindicatethattheappellantisnotthesameRalphD.Cooperasthepersoninthethreeconvictions.Thus,thisissueiswithoutmerit. Inhissecondissue,theappellantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghismotionforacontinuance.Hemaintainsthatbecausehefiledapostconvictionreliefpetitionchallengingoneofhisconvictions,thecourtshouldhavegrantedhimacontinuanceuntiladecisionofhispetitionhadbeenrendered.Hearguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbydenyinghimacontinuance,which ineffectpunishedanddeprived[him]ofdueprocessoflawbylegallybarringhimfromoperatingamotorvehicle,whilethevalidityofoneofthequalifyingoffenseswasinmaterialdispute. Thestateassertsthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion.Itnotesthat thegrantingofacontinuancerestsinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Thestateinsiststhattheappellantspostconvictionpetitionwasimmaterialtothehabitualoffenderhearing.  Weagreewiththestatethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion.Theappellanthadthreefaciallyvalidconvictionsatthetimeofthehearing;andasthestatenotesinitsbrief,thatisallthatisrequiredbeforethehearingcanproceed.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Next,theappellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyimproperlyadmittingevidenceoftheappellants1991conviction.Heassertsthatthestateattemptedtointroducethe1991convictionbutthat ithadnotbeenproperlyauthenticated,andtherebyshouldhavebeenexcludedunderRule901oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Furthermore,hecontendsthattheevidenceoftheconvictionwasinadmissibleunderevidenceRule902becauseitdidnotbeartheofficialstateseal. Thestatemaintainsthattheevidenceoftheappellants1991convictionwasproperlyadmitted.ItcontendsthattheconvictionwascertifiedbythedeputyclerkofthegeneralsessionscourtofShelbyCounty.Thestateacknowledgesthatalthoughthecertificationwassigned,therewasnosealaffixed.ThestateinsiststhatTennesseeRuleofEvidence901(b)(7)providesthat,asinthiscase,thecertificationofthedeputyclerkprovidesevidencethatthecopyoftheconvictionwasfromthegeneralsessionscourtwheresuchrecordsarekept.Furthermore,itarguesthatthereisnothingintherecord,orfromtheappellant,tosuggestthatthecopyofthe1991convictionwasfalse.Thus,theevidenceoftheconvictionwasproperlyadmitted. Althoughthesealwasnotaffixed,thesignedcertificationofthedeputyclerkwassufficienttoindicatethatthecopyofthe1991convictionwasnotfalseorunreliable,especiallyinlightoftheappellantsfailuretoprovideprooftothecontrary.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Finally,theappellantinhisfourthissueinvitesthisCourttorevisittheissueofwhethertheMotorVehicleHabitualOffendersActviolatesdoublejeopardy,notingthatourSupremeCourthasheldthattheActdoesnotviolatedoublejeopardy.Statev.Conley,639S.W.2d435(Tenn.1982).Thestatearguesthatbecausetheappellantfailstoprovideanargumentforhisrequest,thisissueiswaivedpursuanttoRule10(b)oftheRulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. Wedeclinetheinvitationtorevisittheissueofdoublejeopardy.Thisissueiswaived. Findingnoerrormandatingreversal,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment.   Q   ______________________________  PAULG.SUMMERS,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge___________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge-