WPC,S      WP_TV07805664WP6)sportsallerxsIWPTVWPC2 x &'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEt{WP}10{WP}01< Helvetica HelveticaU{WP}12   M{WP}11   PWP 6.0 caption8{WP}22M{WP}16 # >HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhHU:I,  AZ"Arial Regular %XU 0G(,$XoXXXNw@ D UFeDDDeӀ"4n~<$$3|xO 0W(;(3j$ ,!XXXX      0  R 0D(#$  0  &.R 0D6(3$ !  5'z  !"  XOXXX(AXXO   Ad FILEDXOX(A   August20,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXOAppellateCourtClerk HU:,cAZ"Arial Regular_ AQ"@ !#%C<< C"Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5R 0D#W(3$ !  + B# dR 0D#($$   1  = D/#''' dxd+ B$+P PdA D3$H""""'dxd  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva 4R3.5.2'3.5.2, 1996 Corel Corporation Limited,R3.5.2Created with WordPerfect 3.5.2. ^7FD {X ^Corel WordPerfectxHH(FG(HH(d'hS:L CPSetBPJobNStylZwp60versWDatSTR PtPt:?:?_ (Kx Tt < Ja$ >++ 2  +:?x H:?d :?h :?l :?` W:?p }:?\ :> :?H U:> :? :> :> 5:? n:? :?L :>! :?" K:?# z:?% :?$' :?,( @:?0 V:B :A:G :A{WP}10{WP}12{WP}11WP 6.0 caption{WP}22{WP}16{WP}01"Hl' '" x {WP}10 <<KK ..,,..,, x  Helvetica۪HHlH  Ы(d(   ٬A 7OXdd7A " x   Arial Regular" Э       x  x  x 0' '0 x 6$6Q' '$"Ϊҫ      x QQ0h`Q'$' x {WP}10 <<KK  x  Helvetica x a{WP}22 x  x  Helvetica x  $Y@Y@Y@FILED$ 0$' '0F$$2' '$August 20, 199802@22' '0F@N Cecil Crowson, Jr.$N\'  '$  Appellate Court Clerk    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE0QlQQ' '0AT JACKSON0lll' '0JULY 1998 SESSION$' '$ܪ  ЫSTATE OF TENNESSEE,$$)0' '0$$$$$$)  $$Appellee,$$) C.C.A. No. 02C019710CC00417  $$$$$$)  vs.$$$$$) Henry County  $$$$$$)$  ' '$JESSE LEONARD JOHNSON, III,) Honorable Julian P. Guinn0' '0$$$$$$)0-' '0$$Appellant.$$) (Possession of Marijuana and$$$$$$) Cocaine with Intent to -I$$$$$$) Manufacture, Sell or Deliver)IW$$$$$$) We$$$$$$)essFOR THE APPELLANT:$$ FOR THE APPELLEE:MICHAEL L. AINLEY$$ JOHN KNOX WALKUPAinley & Hoover$$$ Attorney General & Reporter123 N. Poplar Street, Suite AParis, TN 38242$$$ DOUGLAS D. HIMES$$$$$ Assistant Attorney General$$$$$$ 425 Fifth Avenue North$$$$$$ Nashville, TN 372430493 $$$$$$ ROBERT  GUS RADFORD  $$$$$ District Attorney General !)$$$$$ 24th Judicial District!")7$$$$$$ P.O. Box 686"#7E$$$$$ Huntington, TN 38344#$ES$%Sa%&aoJ&'o} oo''} HJܿ(J&(p~ pp((~ HJOPINION FILED: _____________)$*' '$ x  x  x  x AFFIRMED0+' '0,$-' '$CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE0.F' '0/0 1  2  x ͪЫ x  x  x  3( x ͪЫ x  x  x  4(6 56D6DR$7R`' '$ x ͪЫ x  x  x OPINION08`n`' '09n|$:|' '$ x ͪ  Ы x  x    x $$The defendant, Jesse Leonard Johnson, III, appeals from the' 'Nsentencing determination of the Henry County Circuit Court. In that court, a juryconvicted the defendant of three counts of possession of controlled substancesUwith intent to manufacture, sell or deliver. One count involved possession of/marijuana, a Class E felony, and two counts involved possession of cocaine,Class B felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced theUUdefendant as a Range I offender. The trial court imposed the minimumsentences of one year on the marijuana charge and eight years on each of thecocaine charges with all sentences to run concurrently. The trial court orderedNsplit confinement. It required the defendant to be incarcerated for one year withNthe balance of the effective eightyear sentence to be served on probation. Thedefendant received credit for his pretrial incarceration which, at the time of theUUsentencing hearing, was an unspecified period of time in excess of 210 days. ؞The trial court also imposed the fines recommended by the jury: $3,000 on the6 [ H H6/marijuana count, $50,000 on one cocaine count, and $10,000 on the other' 'cocaine count, for a total of $63,000 in fines. x Tt{WP}11  1   * x **"Hl' '" x {WP}10 <<KK  x  HelveticaHHlH$ x  x  Helvetica x $  1  The maximum fine for the marijuana charge is $5,000, Tenn.' 'Code Ann.  3917417(c)(1) (1997), and the maximum fine for the cocainecharge is $100,000, Tenn. Code Ann.  3917417(g)(1) (1997).**֭0JN/' '0KNi$$In this appeal, the appellant challenges the sentences as beingUtoo harsh and the sentences and fines as being disproportionate to the plea  .bargained sentences imposed upon a codefendant. After review of the case,we affirm the trial courts judgment.OiP$$bvWe are able to glean very few facts from the record. The record*contains no transcript of the trial proceedings. Although the record includes a' ']transcript of the sentencing hearing, x Tt{WP}11  2     x <"Hl' '" x {WP}10 <<KK  x  HelveticaHHlH$  x  x  Helvetica x !  2  We note that on this appeal the presentence report appears in the' 'Itechnical record prepared by the trial court clerk. As such, it is not authenticatedffby the trial judge, nor does the report appear as an authenticated exhibit to thesentencing hearing transcript. We have previously urged trial courts tomauthenticate the report, as in the manner of an exhibit, and to append or exhibitthe report to the transcript of the sentencing hearing. See State v. JerryfBlaylock, No. 02C019602CC00069, slip op. at 15, n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App.,UUJackson, Aug. 21, 1997), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1998). We recognize thatUthe presentence report is mandated by statute, seeàTenn. Code Ann.  4035  203(b), 205(a) (1997), that the preparer of the report is an officer dulyappointed by the commissioner of correction, see Tenn. Code Ann.  4035  I%204(a) (1997), and that the report  shall be filed with the clerk of the court. Tenn. Code Ann.  4035209 (1997). These safeguards for the reliablepreparation and filing of the report facilitate the receipt and use of the report bythe trial court, as well as by the prosecution and the defense. However, the$availability and use of the report at the sentencing hearing in the trial court doesnot always address the issue of the organization of the sentencing record for theappellate review. In Jerry Blaylock, we made an analogy to the preservation ofEevidentiary exhibits, which must be authenticated by the trial court and includedwith the transcript of the evidence in order to be  in evidence. Jerry Blaylock,wwslip op. at 15, n. 2 (citing State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 125, 131 (Tenn. Crim.App. 1987)). While the mechanism for filing the presentence report as set forthqin Code section 4035209 arguably distinguishes the practice in handlingthese reports from the handling of traditional evidentiary exhibits, the betterpractice from the standpoint of preserving an appellate record is for thesentencing trial judge to authenticate, or at least identify, the report he or she isusing, along with any approved amendments. Such a practice helps to assureIthis court in conducting its deànovo review of the sentencing proceeding that it isUreviewing the same document that was before the trial court and that thedocument was in the same form, state of completion or amendment, andsupplemented by the same exhibits and/or appendices.! ֭ the presentence report contains very littleN& & S< H' 'N/information about the nature and circumstances of the offense, and no oneUUtestified about these issues at the sentencing hearing. From facts available, we;discern that the defendant was seventeen years of age on the date the offensesDDwere committed. His case was transferred to Circuit Court in order for him to be""tried as an adult, and he was eighteen years of age at the time of sentencing. *The police discovered the contraband inside a bag which was found on theOfront seat of a vehicle in which the defendant and the adult codefendant werejriding. The codefendant pleaded guilty, was fined a total of $6,000, and9apparently was released immediately on probation upon receiving credit for;time served. A stipulation filed with the trial court reflects that the codefendantclaimed the contraband as his own. Nevertheless, a jury tried the defendantand convicted him of the three counts of possession of illegal drugs._`$$UThe defendants issues must fail on the basis of waiver. First, theUdefendant has waived the issues raised in this appeal because no transcript or6 zb H6statement of the evidence presented at trial was included in the record. ThisUdeletion is significant in view of the trial courts declaration at the sentencingthearing that he found the defendant, who apparently continued to maintain his]innocence, untruthful in light of the  overwhelming evidence at trial that thedefendant had the necessary intent to possess the contraband. The appealing؞party has an obligation to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and@complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues which form thebases of the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(a); State v. Boling, 840 S.W.2d 944,951 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).  Absent the necessary relevant material in therecord an appellate court cannot consider the merits of an issue. State v.UBallard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 56061 (Tenn. 1993). We point out that theFSentencing Reform Act requires the trial court, in sentencing a defendant, toconsider among other factors,  [t]he evidence, if any, received at the trial and thersentencing hearing, Tenn. Code Ann.  4035210(b)(1) (1997), and this'bcourts de novo review on the record requires us, as well, to consider these;factors. The defendants failure to present a transcript or statement of the trialUevidence frustrates and in this case precludes our mandated de novo review. ; In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this court must presume thatUUthe trial courts rulings were supported by sufficient evidence. State v. Oody,823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).$v ' '$$0w  1 ' '0$$$Second, the defendants issue concerning the disproportionality of 17' 'the fines imposed by the trial court is also waived because the defendant in his6 LRy 1 H6I%brief cites no authority in support of his position. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7);NTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 10(b); State v. Galloway, 696 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Tenn.jCrim. App. 1985).  Issues which are not supported by argument, citation toUauthorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived inthis court. Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 10(b).~ 1  $$]In light of these findings of waiver, we are not constrained toconsider further issues presented in the defendants appeal. However, weqcannot resist commenting that the defendants complaint about the harshness*and unfairness of his sentences is not sustainable. He received the minimumFsentences on all counts, the sentences run concurrently, and the defendant was@accorded alternative sentencing in the form of split confinement. The fact thatLhis time served in incarceration may exceed the incarceration time experienced6by his codefendant is, in and of itself, irrelevant to a courts consideration of thedefendants sentencing. SeeàState v. Larry Harris, No. 278, slip op. at 34 t](Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 24, 1988) (Harris sentence of 45 yearssupported by sentencing considerations applied to him, regardless of twelve ' ' year sentence imposed upon guiltypleading accomplice).0  ] B' '0$ ] x' '$$The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.0 x  x' '0$ ' '$ x ͪ  Ы x  x    x $$$$$$$$ 7' '_____________________ $$$$$$$$CURWOOD WITT, JUDGEJ  S HJܿ    CONCUR:   . . < < J_________________________ J XJOE G. RILEY, JUDGE  X f  f t  t   _________________________$  ' '$ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, SPECIAL JUDGE0  ' '0 x  x  x  x