State v. Seabrook

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Terrance Seabrook, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001495

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-164
Submitted February 1, 2017 – Filed April 19, 2017

AFFIRMED

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))).

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.