September 9, 2014
DOYLE, P. J., MILLER and DILLARD, JJ.
Ulysses Holman, who is represented by counsel, appeals from his convictions for serious injury by vehicle and DUI less safe. In his notice of appeal, however, Holman did not request that a trial transcript be included as part of the appellate record. Because no transcript was requested, the transcript was not transmitted to this Court for review and, for the reasons set forth infra, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
OCGA § 5-6-37 specifies that a notice of appeal shall set forth, inter alia, "a designation of those portions of the record to be omitted from the record on appeal, " and "[i]n addition, the notice shall state whether or not any transcript of evidence and proceedings is to be transmitted as a part of the record on appeal." But here, Holman's notice of appeal stated only that nothing should be omitted from the record on appeal. The notice did not request that a transcript of evidence and proceedings be transmitted to this Court as a part of the appellate record, and we are not at liberty to infer otherwise. Indeed, as our Supreme Court has explicitly held, "[t]he specification that 'nothing' is to be omitted from the record would not infer that the transcript is to be included, since the appellant is required to state whether the transcript will be filed, in addition to designating any portion of the record to be omitted."
The absence of the trial transcript in the case sub judice makes it impossible for this Court to review Holman's enumerations of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the court's instructions to the jury, and trial counsel's allegedly ineffective assistance. It is well established that it is the burden of the complaining party "to compile a complete record of what happened at the trial level, and when this is not done, there is nothing for the appellate court to review." Additionally, when no transcript is included in the record on appeal we "must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment." We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Doyle, P J, and Miller, J, concur.