State v. King, 218 N.C. App. 347

King was indicted in June 2008 on possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, selling cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and habitual felon status.
Trial began September 8, 2008, after a buy of $30 worth of crack; officers surveilled and arrested him.
King was found guilty on the drug charges and the habitual felon status phase; sentenced to 30 days for paraphernalia and 150–189 months for drug crimes, with consecutive terms.
Indigent defendant sought a transcript; a partial transcript was provided but sections were missing and unrecoverable.
On appeal, defendant challenged: complete transcript denial, plain error for silence testimony, and ineffective assistance due to counsel’s concession of guilt.
The court reversed in part, remanding for a new habitual felon status hearing and, on other issues, dismissed some arguments without prejudice to relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Transcript completeness for appeal	King cannot reasonably review due to missing portions	State failed to provide a complete transcript	Partially granted; remanded for habitual felon hearing; review narrowed where possible.
Plain error from witness testimony about silence	Admission of silence prejudiced defendant	Questioning on silence was permissible	No plain error; testimony not prejudicial in context.
Ineffective assistance—counsel conceded guilt on paraphernalia	Counsel admitted guilt without consent	Admission violated defendant’s rights	Dismissed without prejudice to relief; record incomplete to determine consent.
Habitual felon status appealability given transcript gaps	Incomplete record prevents meaningful review	Review should proceed despite gaps	Remand for new habitual felon status determination and sentencing.

State v. Hobbs, 190 N.C.App. 183 (2008) (preconditions for reviewing incomplete transcripts; tailoring review when transcript unavailable)
In re Clark, 159 N.C.App. 75 (2003) (narrative reconstruction of missing testimony permissible)
Hunt v. Hunt, 112 N.C.App. 722 (1993) (nonverbatim reconstruction as viable alternative to transcript)
Quick, 179 N.C.App. 647 (2006) (reconstruction permissible to allow meaningful review)
Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277 (1964) (requirement of transcript for appellate review of testimony and jury instructions)
Karabin v. Petsock, 758 F.2d 966 (1985) (due process and transcript requirements for appeal)
State v. Ward, 354 N.C. 231 (2001) (prohibition on comment on silence; limits of prosecutorial remark)
State v. Ezzell, 182 N.C.App. 417 (2007) (prohibition on commenting on defendant’s right to silence)
State v. Alexander, 337 N.C. 182 (1994) (benign questions about silence not plain error when evidence substantial)
State v. Payne, 280 N.C. 170 (1971) (invited error doctrine; defendant cannot raise invited error as basis for new trial)