THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Terrance Seabrook, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001495

Appeal From Beaufort County Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-164 Submitted February 1, 2017 – Filed April 19, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Adams v. H.R. Allen, Inc., 397 S.C. 652, 656, 726 S.E.2d 9, 12 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Where portions of stenographic notes are lost prior to transcription, it is appropriate for the [trial court] to accept affidavits of counsel and the court reporter to determine what transpired."); id. ("[T]he reconstructed record must allow for meaningful appellate review."); id. at 656-57, 726 S.E.2d at 12 ("A new trial is therefore appropriate if the appellant establishes that the incomplete nature of the transcript prevents the appellate court from conducting a meaningful appellate review." (quoting State v. Ladson, 373 S.C. 320, 325, 644 S.E.2d 271, 274 (Ct. App. 2007))); Ladson, 373 S.C. at 324, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("[T]he inability to prepare a complete verbatim transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a sufficient ground for reversal.'' (quoting Smith v. State, 433 A.2d 1143, 1148 (Md. 1981))); id. at 325, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("[B]efore a defendant can establish that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of an inadequate reconstructed record, he must identify a specific appellate claim that this court would be unable to review effectively using the reconstructed record." (alteration in original) (quoting Harris v. Comm'r of Corr., 671 A.2d 359, 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996))).

AFFIRMED.1 LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.