Opinion
2017-UP-164
04-19-2017
The State, Respondent, v. Terrance Seabrook, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2015-001495
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, all for Respondent.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted February 1, 2017
Appeal From Beaufort County Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge.
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Adams v. H.R. Allen, Inc., 397 S.C. 652, 656, 726 S.E.2d 9, 12 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Where portions of stenographic notes are lost prior to transcription, it is appropriate for the [trial court] to accept affidavits of counsel and the court reporter to determine what transpired."); id. ("[T]he reconstructed record must allow for meaningful appellate review."); id. at 656-57, 726 S.E.2d at 12 ("A new trial is therefore appropriate if the appellant establishes that the incomplete nature of the transcript prevents the appellate court from conducting a meaningful appellate review." (quoting State v. Ladson, 373 S.C. 320, 325, 644 S.E.2d 271, 274 (Ct. App. 2007))); Ladson, 373 S.C. at 324, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("[T]he inability to prepare a complete verbatim transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a sufficient ground for reversal.'' (quoting Smith v. State, 433 A.2d 1143, 1148 (Md. 1981))); id. at 325, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("[B]efore a defendant can establish that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of an inadequate reconstructed record, he must identify a specific appellate claim that this court would be unable to review effectively using the reconstructed record." (alteration in original) (quoting Harris v. Comm'r of Corr., 671 A.2d 359, 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996))).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.