Opinion ID: 1239150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Inadequacy of the record on appeal

Text: (75) Defendant contends that the record on appeal is inadequate, because the court reporter's notes of several reported proceedings that took place in chambers were lost and related transcripts either were not prepared or, having been prepared, also were lost. The record does contain, however, a settled statement prepared by appellate defense counsel and acceded to by the Attorney General, describing the contents of each of these in-chambers discussions and indicating the legal arguments that were advanced. Pursuant to section 1181, subdivision 9, a reviewing court is authorized to order a new trial because of the loss or destruction, in whole or in substantial part of the court reporter's notes. The test is whether in light of all the circumstances it appears that the lost portion is `substantial' in that it affects the ability of the reviewing court to conduct a meaningful review and the ability of the defendant to properly perfect his appeal. ( People v. Morales (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 259, 267 [151 Cal. Rptr. 610].) `[W]here other methods of reconstructing the trial record are available, the defendant must proceed with those alternatives in order to obtain review. [Citations.]' ( People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 66 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118].) We find the record in the present case adequate to the task at hand. When the resolution of a defendant's claims does not depend upon a verbatim transcription, a settled statement suffices. ( People v. Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th 43, 66; see People v. Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1098, 1116; see also People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th 865, 921-922, and cases cited therein.) The issues raised pertaining to the proceedings in which no court reporter's record exists do not require a verbatim report of the proceedings for resolution of these issues. This is not a case in which a large or crucial portion of the record is missing. (1 Cal.4th at pp. 921-922.) Therefore, we conclude there has been no violation of defendant's right under the due process clause to meaningful appellate review. ( Rushen v. Spain (1983) 464 U.S. 114, 120 [104 S.Ct. 453, 456-457, 78 L.Ed.2d 267]; People v. Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th 43, 66.)