Opinion ID: 1690126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was jordan denied his right to a meaningful appeal?

Text: ś 45. Jordan claims that he has been denied his constitutional right to an appeal in this case because the record is incomplete. Jordan made a pre-trial motion that was consented to by the State that all trial proceedings, including voir dire and bench conferences, be transcribed for his benefit on appeal. Jordan points out that portions of the record are incomplete, and the record does not contain all of the statements uttered in the courtroom during the sentencing trial, making it impossible for Jordan to ascertain if errors for appeal were contained within those portions of the trial. ś 46. The State alleges that those portions of the trial that Jordan says were not transcribed were, for the most part, administrative matters. The State attempts to show that Jordan can ascertain the content of the missing pieces by context from the rest of the record and that, therefore, he has not been denied a meaningful appeal. ś 47. In Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 211-12 (Miss.1998), we stated, When a trial judge grants a motion to have all proceedings recorded, it becomes at least partially the responsibility of the granting court to do everything possible to ensure the court reporter complies with the order. We did not overrule case law making it the responsibility of the criminal defendant/appellant to ensure that there is record for the appeal, but we did admonish the trial courts of our State to assist in the endeavor. ś 48. In Watts v. State, 717 So.2d 314, 316-18 (Miss.1998), which was decided shortly before Burns, we placed the responsibility on the criminal defendant to prove how he, might have been prejudiced by the missing portions of the trial transcript. Accord, United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979). In Watts, as here, the same counsel represented the criminal defendant at trial and on appeal. We reasoned that the same counsel who represented Watts on his appeal was present at trial when the proceedings occurred and found that it was the responsibility of the appellant to provide an accurate account of the proceedings in accordance with Rule 10(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, an appellant must demonstrate or claim error in the proceedings and record same to the best of his recollection in order to create reversible error. ś 49. We find that the possibility of the missing portions of the transcript contained reversible error is highly unlikely. And, even though it is the responsibility of a judge to insure that the transcript is complete, see Burns v. State, 729 So.2d at 211-212 (When a trial judge grants a motion to have all proceedings recorded, it becomes at least partially the responsibility of the granting court to do everything possible to ensure the court reporter complies with the order.), this fact does not acquit the defense from also making sure that all proceedings are transcribed. ś 50. This claim is without merit.