Court Opinion

ID: 9717268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:00:59.204757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.223191
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority has waived consideration of the sentencing issue because the transcript failed to contain the record of the sentencing hearing. Ind. Appellate Rule 7.2(B) in no uncertain terms states, “Parts which are not transmitted to the court on appeal shall nevertheless be a part of the record on the appeal for all purposes.”
Thus, the rule states that the part of the record not transmitted is before the court on appeal. If it is necessary for the Court of Appeals to view that part of the record, it may order the same transmitted from the trial court.
This is a sound and rational rule; the purpose of which is to reduce the size of the transcript which is necessary to demonstrate the error raised in the appeal. The Court’s failure to follow this rule makes it incumbent upon any competent lawyer to request that the complete record be filed in the appellate court whether or not it is needed, thus causing undue lengthy delays and expense to the appellate process.
The majority opinion cites Stallings v. State1 (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 550, in sup*1035port of the waiver. The supreme court in that opinion inadvertently, or through oversight, made such a statement. In all probability, Stallings failed to note App.R. 7.2(B) in his reply brief thereby causing the court to discuss only the arguments raised in the parties’ briefs.
The decision of the majority eviscerates an appellate rule and needlessly subjects practitioners and appellants to peril.

. After my dissent in this case was written, the majority attempted to bolster its waiver argument by providing authority in addition to Stall-ings. However, the additional authority can be explained in the same manner as Stallings. The courts in those cases must have overlooked App.R. 7.2(B).
The rule is clear and unambiguous. Portions of the record not transmitted are "nevertheless ... part of the record ... for all purposes.” "For all *1035purposes" necessarily includes the ability to predicate error on portions of the record which have not been transmitted to the Court.
Waiver is inappropriate in the face of App.R. 7.2(B) regardless of the quantity of authority which has overlooked the rule.