RODNEY CAMPBELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rodney Campbell appealed his aggravated battery conviction arguing the record was incomplete due to damaged trial transcript portions that could not be reconstructed. The State conceded error, and the appellate court accepted the concession and reversed the judgment, finding that both parties agreed the missing transcript prejudiced Campbell's appellate review rights.
The court reversed Campbell's judgment and sentence and remanded for a new trial. The court accepted the State's concession of error, finding that Campbell satisfied his burden of demonstrating the missing transcript would reflect matters prejudicing him and that meaningful appellate review was impossible.
[1] A defendant need not receive a full transcript of all proceedings for appellate review, but when portions of the appellate record are incomplete, the court must determine…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question to be asked is whether the portions are necessary for a complete review.”
Court's standard for evaluating incomplete appellate records, quoting Smith v. State and Velez v. State
During Campbell's trial for aggravated battery, the court reporter's notes were partially damaged and unable to be transcribed. The trial court attemp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J. Rodney Campbell appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery. On appeal, he argues the record is insufficient to allow appellate review of certain issues at trial. In response, the State explains:
The court reporter filed an affidavit indicating part of the notes for [Campbell’s] trial were damaged and unable to be transcribed. Following an attempt at reconstructing the missing portion of the transcript, the trial court entered an order that the missing portion of the proceedings could not be reconstructed. Based on these facts, the State concedes error and agrees that the judgment and sentence must be reversed.
A defendant is not entitled to a full transcript of all proceedings. “When portions of the appellate record are incomplete, ‘[t]he question to be asked is whether the portions are necessary for a complete review.’” Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Velez v. State, 645 So. 2d 42, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). The defendant must also “demonstrate that there is a basis for a claim that the missing transcript would reflect matters which prejudice the defendant.” Jones v. State, 923 So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla. 2006).1 Here, both Campbell and the State agree that an attempt to provide meaningful appellate review through other means did not succeed. They also agree that Campbell satisfied his threshold burden of demonstrating a basis for his claim that the missing transcript would reflect matters that prejudiced him. See Jones, 923 So. 2d at 489. So we accept the State’s concession that the judgment and sentence must be reversed because of the missing transcript and remand for a new trial. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 262 So. 3d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Reversed and remanded. CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956)
- Velez v. State, 645 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Mercantil Bank, N.A. v. Pazmino, 262 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)