People v. Martin CA3

DISCUSSION

I Lack of Reporter’s Transcript Defendant contends the inability to get a reporter’s transcript of his trial deprives him of meaningful appellate review, which requires reversing his conviction. A criminal defendant has a due process right to an appellate record “sufficient to permit adequate and effective appellate review.” (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 857-858.) Section 1181, subdivision (9), provides that a reviewing court “shall have [the] power” to order a new trial of an action “because of the loss or destruction, in whole or in substantial part,” of the reporter’s notes. To reverse a conviction due to the unavailability of a reporter’s transcript, a defendant first must show the lack of a reporter’s transcript adversely affected the appellate court’s ability to conduct meaningful review. (People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098, 1116, disapproved on another ground in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1.) A defendant also must show it is impossible to get an adequate substitute for the missing transcript, such as a settled statement. (People v. Moore (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 51, 56.) Finally, a defendant must show he or she is not…