ÿWPC  M_zBÀ ŠYçÝX¿¿€Ê4ò/ím¶Ór¿4ojŸ/º%ÒÝ¿º ùš7ËÇÍð½4(~â^]ùl®xæL;-¢r½¬%í!qw.*)øØ4—¿MðЦMŸäˆ'ôÌh¼Ý€X-’IÑt‘ôôº’qž%óMk“™û®ë|ÕNVêGA@*¦tÖ°Ã)TmÅ¡H®YêÌþØ%­ž™7¤½ýõõ"ñy‰‡€eÝ G=l‹I„p ´Ð3ȯuy°”‰ºè$ átïÌRÏðF¥Š?µ-Óo§\2ÿԇͰ§xràm^ÄW7R7ÐòqHž^ˆa¼½(Q‚ÌP«W"ú Ï(¬Pó¡ßp³UY0Þ8 ‡Üäè¤G‹¾Ÿ3aX´zŽ\2VÁüÆ *Ëû'BŸ8µeH,Ÿq—ÿ}fzP£òƒMæÛUŽæ~3þªxS¢ÿ:æ¾,‰ç¦ý¢bðYÖßwBÉ)Š[„kÂT)¢\sÞàü "±Ø–s–Ѝ¡}äPnoŸ~\ðû¿ïYߥÀ`¯x$lTÎW#ÁÂU Nƒ %Ñ 0:×UN ^ _ wk 4o ƒ ’ m” N« e­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 0D    EV V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 0X X X X Bõ ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularH‹•)â •jW)±Wh3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ [Ý ƒRëy$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô>òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Â&Ï Âòô>ÔÔ#†ô>ò ÂÂ&Ï„#ÔObviously,€the€motion€in€limine€was€overruled€because€evidence€of€the€positive€drug€test€was€admitted€intoÐ ° Ðevidence€at€the€trial.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(.G2ëy$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô>òXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÐzXXXÔÔ‡¼FÝ»XXÐzÔà@ttìàÔ#†XÐzX»¼FÝ\#ÔÔ‡î] îXXÐzÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†XÐzXîî] °#ÔÔ‡¼FÝ»XXÐzԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€17,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ#†XÐzX»¼FÝS#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼FÝ»XXÐzÔòòóóState€of€Tennessee€v.€Lester€ParkeròòóóÔ#†XÐzX»¼FÝó#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„10601€à0 @ àà0 @ à€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00282„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€20,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€appeals€from€a€jury€trial€conviction€for€criminal€attempt€to€possess€ScheduleÐ xÈ  ÐII€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€deliver.€€In€the€appeal,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€evidenceÐ d´ Ðwas€insufficient€to€support€the€jury's€verdict,€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€positive€drug€test€ofÐ P  Ðthe€defendant€to€be€admitted€into€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendant'sÐ <Œ Ðmotion€to€remand€the€case€to€the€General€Sessions€Court€for€a€preliminary€hearing.€€We€concludeÐ (x Ðthat€the€issues€presented€for€appeal€are€without€merit€and€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð d ÐÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court:€Affirmed.€ó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ_ÔwilliamÔ_Ô€b.€Ô_ÔacreeÔ_Ô,€jr.,óó€Ô_ÔSP.J.Ô_Ô,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóÔ‡ô>òXXÐzÔJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMSÐ Ä ÐÔ#†XÐzXòô>¾#Ôand€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó,€JJ.€joined.Ð ° ÐÌJon€A.€Anderson,€for€the€appellant.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð `° ÐMichael€Flynn,€District€Attorney€General;€and€William€Reed,€Assistant€District€Attorney,€for€theÐ L œ Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌÌÓþÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€criminal€attempt€to€possess€Schedule€II€controlled€substanceÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwith€intent€to€deliver,€a€Class€D€felony.€€He€was€sentenced€by€the€trial€court€to€two€years€supervisedÐ ˜(è#( Ðprobation.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€€the€evidenceÐ „)Ô$) Ðwas€insufficient€to€support€the€jury's€verdict;€(2)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€positive€drug€testÐ p*À%* Ðto€be€admitted€into€evidence;€and€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendant's€motion€toÐ \+¬&+ Ðremand€the€case€to€the€General€Sessions€Court€for€a€preliminary€hearing.€€Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(- ÐÔ_Ôà  àÌà  àIn€determining€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict€of€the€jury,€it€isÐ œì Ðnecessary€to€review€the€facts€of€the€case.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€employed€by€the€City€of€Alcoa€as€an€animal€control€officer.€€During€€earlyÐ `° Ð1997,€he€contacted€Joy€Hubbard€and€inquired€if€she€had€animals€running€at€large.€€She€replied€thatÐ L œ Ðshe€did€not.€€€During€the€conversation,€the€defendant€asked€for€her€phone€number€and€later€madeÐ 8 ˆ Ðseveral€calls€to€her.€€Ms.€Hubbard€eventually€became€suspicious€that€the€defendant€was€involved€inÐ $ t Ðillegal€drug€activity€and€contacted€the€Alcoa€Police€Department.€€She€was€told€to€contact€them€againÐ  ` Ðif€she€obtained€any€additional€information.€€On€June€20,€1997,€the€defendant€called€Ms.€Hubbard,Ð ü L  Ðand€she€contacted€the€police€department.€€She€met€with€several€police€officers,€and€they€placed€a€wireÐ è 8  Ðon€her.€€Pursuant€to€the€defendantððs€instructions,€Ms.€Hubbard€met€the€defendant€at€the€RockÐ Ô$  ÐGardens€Park€where€she€gave€him€$40.00.€€The€police€officers€observed€and€monitored€this€meeting.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€leaving€the€park,€Ms.€Hubbard€returned€home.€€Her€exhusband€and€one€of€the€policeÐ ˜è  Ðofficers€went€into€her€basement.€€The€defendant€then€arrived€at€Ms.€Hubbardððs€house.€€AccordingÐ „Ô  Ðto€Ms.€Hubbard€and€to€the€officer€in€the€basement,€the€defendant€wanted€an€aluminum€can€whichÐ pÀ Ðshe€did€not€have.€€The€defendant€then€left€Ms.€Hubbardððs€home.€€After€he€left,€a€second€officer€wentÐ \¬ Ðinto€the€basement.€€The€defendant€returned€to€Ms.€Hubbardððs€house€with€an€aluminum€can.€€He€laidÐ H˜ Ðsmall€rocks€on€the€can,€lit€them€and€used€the€can€to€smoke€the€rocks.€€A€forensic€scientist€from€theÐ 4„ ÐT.B.I.€Crime€Laboratory€later€identified€the€residue€on€the€can€to€be€cocaine.€€The€officers€in€theÐ  p Ðbasement€testified€that€they€heard€the€defendant€talking€to€Ms.€Hubbard€about€drugs.€€They€alsoÐ  \ Ðheard€Ms.€Hubbard€ask€the€defendant€to€give€her€her€part€of€the€drugs.€€Eventually,€the€defendant€leftÐ øH ÐMs.€Hubbardððs€home.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€related€a€rather€unusual€story.€€In€the€way€of€background,€he€had€previouslyÐ ¼  Ðworked€as€an€informant€for€the€Drug€Task€Force.€€He€then€obtained€a€job€with€the€sanitationÐ ¨ø Ðdepartment€of€the€City€of€Alcoa.€€While€working€in€that€capacity,€he€filed€a€lawsuit€against€the€city.€Ð ”ä ÐHe€testified€that€as€a€part€of€the€settlement€of€the€case,€he€became€the€animal€control€officer.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€when€he€first€met€Ms.€Hubbard€he€was€on€an€animal€control€call.€Ð X ¨ ÐAccording€to€the€defendant,€Ms.€Hubbard€stopped€him€and€told€him€she€wanted€to€discuss€a€problemÐ D!” Ðwith€him.€€They€went€to€Ms.€Hubbardððs€house,€and€she€brought€out€a€box€of€records€and€severalÐ 0"€  Ðcases€of€micro€cassettes.€€The€defendant€believed€€this€was€evidence€of€corruption€in€the€Alcoa€PoliceÐ #l! ÐDepartment.€€The€defendant€explained€that€the€reason€Ms.€Hubbard€made€him€aware€of€thisÐ $X" Ðinformation€was€because€he€had€a€reputation€of€one€who€was€not€afraid€to€fight€city€hall.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€testified€that€he€later€talked€to€a€city€commissioner€who€told€him€that€he€would€have€toÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€material€evidence€to€proceed€against€the€police€department.€€The€defendant€said€that€it€was€hisÐ Ì&"% Ðduty€to€gather€evidence€against€corrupt€policemen.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAfter€the€initial€conversation,€the€defendant€said€€he€saw€Ms.€Hubbard€on€several€occasions,Ð )à$( Ðand€she€continued€to€express€an€interest€in€turning€this€information€over€to€him.€€In€mid„June,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendant€told€Ms.€Hubbard€that€she€should€come€up€with€some€money€so€that€he€could€take€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinformation,€make€copies€of€it,€document€it€and€put€it€in€chronological€order.€€A€few€days€later,€theyÐ T,¤'+ Ðtalked€again€by€telephone,€and€Ms.€Hubbard€asked€the€defendant€to€"front€her"€some€dope.€€TheyÐ @-(, Ðthen€agreed€to€meet€in€the€park.€€When€they€met,€Ms.€Hubbard€gave€him€money€and€asked€him€whenÐ ° Ðhe€was€going€to€get€the€dope.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAfter€leaving€the€park,€the€defendant€went€to€a€gas€station€and€bought€gas€and€beer.€€He€thenÐ tÄ Ðwent€to€Ms.€Hubbardððs€house€where€she€talked€to€him€about€drugs.€€The€defendant€€left€and€returned.€Ð `° ÐWhen€he€returned,€Ms.€Hubbard€offered€him€a€drink€of€Kool„aid€and€vodka.€€The€defendant€said€thatÐ L œ Ðafter€drinking€part€of€it,€he€felt€strange€and€his€thought€processes€went€astray.€€He€believed€the€drink€Ð 8 ˆ Ðcontained€cocaine.€€€He€then€pretended€to€smoke€cocaine€to€persuade€€Ms.€Hubbard€to€give€theÐ $ t Ðinformation€about€the€corrupt€cops€to€him.€€Ð  ` Ðà  àÌà  àThe€defendant€left€and€was€arrested€later€that€night.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€next€day,€the€defendant€went€to€the€Blount€County€Memorial€Lab€and€underwent€a€drugÐ À  Ðtest€which€he€failed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÐzXXXÐz=#ÔIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€orÐ „Ô  Ðre-evaluate€the€evidence.€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1990),€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1994).€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÐ \¬ Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€the€factual€issues€raised€byÐ H˜ Ðthe€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.Ð 4„ Ð1978).€A€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€credits€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€andÐ  p Ðresolves€all€conflicts€of€testimony€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2dÐ  \ Ð627€(Tenn.€1978).€Since€a€verdict€of€guilty€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÐ øH Ðwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidenceÐ ä4 Ðis€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury.€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.Ð Ð  Ð1982),€òòButleróó,€at€309.€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilty€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ ¼  Ðevidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðfacts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyondÐ ”ä Ða€reasonable€doubt.€òòTuggleóó,€at€914,€òòButleróó,€at€309.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡XÐzXXXÐzÔ€€€€Ð l¼ Ðà  àWe€find€the€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€Direct€evidence€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendantððs€guilt€was€presented€through€several€witnesses.€€The€defendant€attempted€to€refute€Ð D!” Ðthis€testimony€by€a€rather€incredible€story€which€the€jury€did€not€believe.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€second€issue€presented€for€review€is€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€positive€drug€testÐ $X" Ðof€the€defendant€to€be€admitted€into€evidence.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€in€limine€in€the€trial€court€to€exclude€the€results€of€a€drug€test.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€defendant€took€that€test€at€the€Blount€County€Memorial€Lab€on€June€22,€2997,€the€day€after€heÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€at€Ms.€Hubbardððs€house.€€The€defendant€contends€that€he€was€required€to€take€this€test€by€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðemployer,€the€City€of€Alcoa€and€had€he€failed€to€do€so,€he€would€have€been€summarily€discharged.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âIt€appears€from€the€record€that€an€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€upon€this€issue;€however,€neither€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing€nor€the€courtððs€ruling€upon€the€motion€is€a€part€of€this€record.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ° Ðâ âÌà  àThe€State€introduced€evidence€of€the€prior€drug€test€during€its€proof€in€chief.€€The€defendantÐ ˆØ Ðobjected€to€the€drug€test€upon€the€ground€that€it€was€irrelevant.€€The€trial€court€overruled€theÐ tÄ Ðobjection.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€several€grounds€for€excluding€the€drug€test€in€addition€to€the€objectionÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€irrelevance;€however,€there€is€no€factual€basis€in€the€record€to€support€these€grounds.€€Apparently,Ð $ t Ðthis€evidence€was€presented€at€the€hearing€upon€the€defendantððs€motion€in€limine.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€that€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€completeÐ è 8  Ðaccount€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€that€form€the€basis€for€theÐ Ô$  Ðappeal.€€Tenn.R.App.P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€558,€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1987).€€WhenÐ À  Ðthe€record€is€incomplete€and€does€not€contain€information€relevant€to€a€particular€issue,€this€CourtÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€not€make€a€ruling€and€must€presume€the€correctness€of€the€trial€court.€€See€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€556,€558€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€131€(Tenn.Crim.App.Ð „Ô  Ð1987).€€Accordingly,€the€only€ground€we€can€consider€in€deciding€this€issue€is€the€objection€madeÐ pÀ Ðat€trial€that€this€evidence€is€not€relevant.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€of€relevancy€of€a€drug€test€was€addressed€in€òòState€v.€Stoddardóó,€909€S.W.2d€454Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.Crim.App.).€€In€òòStoddardóó,€the€defendant€was€a€Memphis€police€officer€charged€withÐ  p Ðpossession€of€cocaine€and€marijuana.€€His€defense€was€that€he€found€the€drugs€in€the€course€of€hisÐ  \ Ðduties€and€had€not€yet€had€the€opportunity€to€take€them€to€the€property€room.€€In€support€of€thisÐ øH Ðdefense,€he€attempted€to€introduce€a€€negative€drug€test€into€evidence,€but€the€test€was€excluded€byÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€holding€that€the€test€was€relevant,€the€Court€held:Ð ¨ø ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àð ðÔ#†XÐzXXXÐzÄ*#ÔRule€401€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€thatÐ €Ð Ð"'relevant€evidence'€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€theÐ l¼ Ðexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÐ D!” Ðevidence."€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€provide€that€theÐ 0"€  Ð"test€for€admissibility€is€a€lenient€one."€The€determination€ofÐ #l! Ðrelevance€or€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€within€the€soundÐ $X" Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€òòState€v.€Leathóó,€744€S.W.2d€591,€593Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà ¸ àDue€to€the€self-ascribed€leniency€of€Rule€401,€we€tend€toÐ ¸'#& Ðagree€that€the€drug€test€was€relevant.€However,€the€probative€value€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthis€evidence€is€obviously€slight€and€does€not€amount€to€prejudicialÐ )à$( Ðerror.€We€therefore€find€that€any€error€in€not€admitting€the€drugÐ |*Ì%) Ðscreen€into€evidence€to€be€harmlessÔ‡XÐzXXXÐzÔ.ððÐ ° ÐÌòòStoddardóó,€at€459.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àIn€case€of€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€State€argues€that€the€results€of€the€drug€test€were€relevant€toÐ `° Ðcorroborate€the€testimony€of€State€witnesses€that€the€defendant€smoked€crack€cocaine€at€Ms.Ð L œ ÐHubbardððs€home.€€We€agree€with€the€Stateððs€argument,€although€we€also€observe€that€the€results€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€drug€test€corroborate€the€defendantððs€argument€that€he€drank€Kool„aid€spiked€with€cocaine.€€InÐ $ t Ðsummary,€we€hold€that€the€positive€drug€test€was€relevant€evidence.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€third€and€final€issue€presented€for€review€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendantððs€motion€to€remand€the€case€to€the€General€Sessions€Court€for€a€preliminary€hearing.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€asserts€that€although€he€was€indigent,€the€General€Sessions€Judge€refused€to€appoint€himÐ À  Ðan€attorney.€€He€admits€that€he€€waived€his€preliminary€hearing,€but€insists€that€the€waiver€was€underÐ ¬ü  Ðduress.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€record€reflects€that€after€the€defendant€was€bound€over€to€the€grand€jury,€but€before€heÐ pÀ Ðwas€indicted,€he€filed€a€motion€in€the€Circuit€Court€to€stay€the€presentation€of€his€case€to€the€grandÐ \¬ Ðjury€and€to€remand€it€to€General€Sessions€Court€for€a€preliminary€hearing.€€The€motion€was€preparedÐ H˜ Ðfor€the€defendant€by€an€attorney€who€was€acting€pro€bono.€€The€motion€was€denied€by€the€CircuitÐ 4„ ÐCourt€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€A€transcript€of€the€proceedings€in€the€General€Sessions€CourtÐ  p Ðhas€not€been€made€a€part€of€this€record.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  à€The€defendant€relies€upon€òòMcKeldin€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€82€(S.Ct.€1974).€€In€òòMcKeldinóó,Ð ä4 Ðthe€defendant€was€declared€to€be€indigent€and€a€person€named€Issiah€Ewing€was€appointed€toÐ Ð  Ðrepresent€him.€€It€subsequently€developed€that€Mr.€Ewing€was€neither€trained€nor€licensed€to€practiceÐ ¼  Ðlaw.€€The€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€held:€€€a€preliminary€hearing€is€a€critical€stage€in€the€criminalÐ ¨ø Ðprosecution;€a€criminal€defendant€is€guaranteed€the€right€to€counsel€at€a€preliminary€hearing;€and€Ð ”ä Ðthe€State€must€provide€competent€counsel€for€an€indigent€defendant€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðcase€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€whether€the€denial€of€counsel€at€theÐ l¼ Ðpreliminary€hearing€was€harmless€error.€€òòId.óó,€at€86,€87.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWe€cannot€determine€from€the€record€why€the€defendant€was€not€represented€by€counsel€atÐ 0"€  Ðthe€preliminary€hearing.€€If€the€defendant€was€indigent€at€the€time€and€the€General€Sessions€JudgeÐ #l! Ðarbitrarily€denied€him€counsel,€then€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€relief€under€€òòMcKeldin.óó€€On€the€otherÐ $X" Ðhand,€if€the€defendant€was€not€indigent€or€if€he€simply€chose€not€to€have€an€attorney,€then€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€As€previously€stated,€when€the€record€is€incomplete,€this€CourtÐ à%0!$ Ðmay€not€speculate€on€what€happened€in€the€lower€courts.€€Therefore,€we€must€presume€there€was€aÐ Ì&"% Ðvalid€reason€why€the€defendant€did€not€have€an€attorney€at€the€preliminary€hearing..Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThere€is€an€additional€reason€why€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€a€remand.€€This€issue€wasÐ )à$( Ðnot€preserved€by€the€defendant€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Tenn.R.App.P.€3€(e)€provides€in€part€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðfollows:Ð h+¸&* ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àð ðÔ#†XÐzXXXÐz3>#ÔProvided,€however,€that€in€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issueÐ @-(, Ðpresented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admissionÐ ° Ðor€exclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,Ð œì Ðmisconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€other€action€committed€orÐ ˆØ Ðoccurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€aÐ tÄ Ðnew€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€aÐ `° Ðmotion€for€a€new€€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€asÐ L œ Ðwaived.Ô‡XÐzXXXÐzÔððÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àThis€issue€is€waived€because€of€the€failure€to€include€this€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€the€issues€presented€for€review€are€without€merit,€and€theÐ è 8  Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àÌ€à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________Иè (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€B.€Acree,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÔ#†XÐzXXXÐzAP#Ô