This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).







State of Minnesota,





Richard V. Rean,




Filed October 21, 2003

Klaphake, Judge


Dakota County District Court

File No. 0330320



Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101-2134; and


Todd P. Zettler, Special Assistant County Attorney, Ronald B. Hocevar, Assistant Scott County Attorney, Government Center JC340, 200 4th Avenue West, Shakopee, MN  55379 (for respondent)


Daniel S. Adkins, Richard Sand, Richard Sand & Associates P.A., 168 Nina Street, St. Paul, MN  55102 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Richard V. Rean appeals from his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm and fifth-degree controlled substance offense.  Appellant argues that (1) police who responded to a domestic-assault call did not have probable cause to arrest him; (2) after arresting and securing him, police did not have grounds for a protective sweep of the house; and (3) field testing of a trace amount of white residue was insufficient, without scientific testing, to support his conviction for the drug offense.  Because appellant has failed to provide a complete transcript, we are unable to review these issues and affirm the conviction.


            Appellant contends that he was arrested prior to any attachment of probable cause, that the protective sweep conducted by police was unconstitutional, and that the evidence was insufficient.  Appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate transcript and without more complete transcripts, we cannot review any of the issues raised by appellant.  Eichinger v. Wicker Enters., Inc., 389 N.W.2d 759, 761 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 27, 1986). 

Normally, a criminal defendant cannot obtain a new trial on appeal by establishing that error occurred in the conduct of the trial unless he provides this court with a complete transcript or an appropriate stipulation concerning what would be disclosed by a complete transcript because without
such a transcript or stipulation, we cannot verify whether the error resulted in prejudice.


State v. Axford, 417 N.W.2d 88, 93 (Minn. 1987) (quotation omitted). 

            This court repeatedly warned appellant of the consequences of failing to provide an adequate record for review.  See State v. Rean, No. CX-02-1052 (Minn. App. June 24, 2003) (order directing this panel to address adequacy of record and summarizing series of orders from this court dealing with transcript issues).  In response, appellant has provided only partial transcripts of the omnibus hearing and trial.  Without more complete transcripts, we cannot review any of the issues now raised by appellant.  We therefore affirm appellant’s conviction.