Thе People seek review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in
People v. Wells,
I
On December 15, 1984, the. victim and her mother wеnt Christmas shopping at a Colorado Springs shopping center. They arrived at approximately 9:15 a.m. After shopping for fifteen to twenty minutes, the victim, a twenty-year-old college student, returned to the car to deposit sоme packages.
As the victim approached her car, she noticed a four-door brown station wagon with wooden panels parked closely behind her car. A man sitting in the driver’s seat of the car got out of the car, stretched, and remarked, “Oh, its cold out here.” The victim looked at the man and replied, “Yeah, but at least it’s not snowing.”
As she was unlocking the car door, a man came up behind her, put his hand on her arm and placed a knife against her rib cage. The man told her not to yell or scream. The victim turned and recognized the man behind her as the man from the brown station wagon with whom she had just spoken.
The assailant placed the victim in the back seat of the station wagon, took her car keys, tied her hands and feet, placed a pillowcase over her head, put her on the floor and covered her with a blanket. He then drove for a short period of time, stoрped the car, and stated that he had not decided whether he was going to kill her. He took her outside of the car, removed the pillow case and placed duct tape over her eyes.
The assailant then placed the victim back into the car, drove to a second location, and forced her to perform fellatio on him and to submit to anal intercourse. The assailant then took the victim to a field and commentеd again that he should kill her. Although the victim heard the click of a knife, the assailant untied her hands, told her not to take off the tape and said that he would leave her car keys on the dashboard of her car.
After the assailаnt drove away, the victim removed the tape and walked to a nearby street. Neil Parks observed her, *388 stopped his vehicle and drove her to the shopping center. They arrived at approximately 10:20 a.m., and the victim suddenly observed a brown station wagon resembling the one driven by the person who had assaulted her. She recognized the driver as her assailant, pointed him out to Parks and recorded the car’s license plate number.
The viсtim reported the incident to Colorado Springs police officials and gave the officers the duct tape that she had removed from her eyes. She also described her assailant to a police deteсtive. The only item missing from her car was $10; the car keys were on the dashboard.
Later that day police officials located a 1977 station wagon with a license plate matching the number recorded by the victim parked аt a Colorado Springs residence. Several officers kept the house under surveillance until the defendant, who matched the victim’s description, came out of the house. Pursuant to the defendant’s consent, the officers searched the residence and seized a pocket knife. Later, pursuant to a warrant, police officials searched the station wagon and seized a pair of leather-type work gloves, gray duct taрe and a multicolor bedspread.
On December 16, 1984, the victim identified the defendant as her assailant from a photographic lineup presented to her by police officials. She and Parks later identified the defendаnt at a live lineup.
On January 2, 1985, an information was filed against the defendant in El Paso County District Court. It alleged the following counts: (1) second degree kidnapping, in violation of section 18-3-302, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.); (2) first degree sexual assault, in violation оf section 18-3-402, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.); (3) aggravated robbery, in violation of section 18-4-302, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.); and (4) crime of violence, in violation of section 16-11-309, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.). On February 27, 1985, the information was amended to add four additional counts alleging that the defendant was a habitual criminal, in violation of section 16-13-101, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.). One of those counts was later dismissed.
The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion for transcripts of the. criminal proceedings underlying the remaining three habitual criminal counts. A preliminary hearing was conducted on February 7, 1985, and the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a transcript of that hearing.
The defendant’s trial commenced on June 3, 1985. On June 5, 1985, the jury found the defendant guilty of all counts, including the three habitual criminal counts. On June 17, 1985, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or in the alternative a new trial. On July 5, 1985, the trial court granted the motion for new trial and set a new trial date of July 15, 1985. 1 The defendant then moved for a continuance of the trial date and for a transcript of the trial proceedings. 2 The trial court denied the motion that day.
The second trial commenced on July 15, 1985. On July 16, 1985, the jury returned verdicts finding the defendant guilty of all offenses with the exception of the offense of aggravated robbery. On August 6, 1985, the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury convictions and remanded the case for a third trial on the ground that the trial court’s failure to grant the defendant’s motion to continue the date of the second trial and to obtain a transcript of the first trial constituted reversible error. The Court of Appeals also held that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the defendant’s objeсtions to certain similar transaction evidence, but concluded that the error was harmless.
II
It is no doubt true that when a mistrial has been declared a transcript of
*389
prior trial proceedings would aid a defendant in preparing for the new trial.
3
Portions of such a transcript might well provide means for impeachment of prosecution witnesses.
See Britt v. North Carolina,
A motion for continuance, on the other hand, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed in absence of an abuse of discretion.
People v. Hampton,
In its decision, the Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he only reason for denying the continuance was the resulting delay necessary to prepare a transcript.” It also stated:
Here, the trial court’s failure to grant the continuance denied defendant the opportunity to prepare properly for trial. Identity [of the assailant] was the sole issue at trial, and the People’s case relied heavily upon the victim’s identificаtion testimony. Her recall of the encounter and her testimony regarding the People’s evidence provided the basis of the prosecution. Therefore, under these circumstances, a transcript of the prior mistrial would have been a valuable preparation tool for the defendant.
People v. Wells,
The record on appeal contains neither the defendant’s motion nor any transcript of any trial proceedings directed to consideration of the motion. The record contains no other evidence to support a conclusion that delay caused by the time necessary to prepare a transcript was the sole reason fоr the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion. The only reference in the record to the motion for continuance and for a transcript, other than a reference in the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial filed July 18, 1985, after the conclusion of the second trial, is the trial court’s minute order of July 5, 1985, which states, “DEF MOTN FOR TRANSCRIPT/AND CONT— DENIED.”
In this state of the record, an appellate court can only speculate as to the reasons for the triаl court’s decision. The motion itself may have been too general or otherwise deficient, 4 or the trial court may have *390 determined that alternatives other than a complete transcript of all trial proceedings would suffice. What is certаin is that the record contains no information to sustain the defendant’s assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motions.
It is the defendant’s responsibility to designate the record on appeal, including such parts of the trial proceedings as are necessary for purposes of the appeal, and to ensure that the record is properly transmitted to an appellate court. C.A.R. 10(b), (c);
People v. Thompson,
III
The People assert that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court improperly admitted similar transaction evidence. However, the Court of Appeals also determined that the admission of this evidence did not constitute reversible error, and the defendant has not challenged that ruling by cross-appeal. Therefore, we do not аddress this argument.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Notes
. The trial court concluded that it had erred in advising the defendant concerning his right to testify in his own behalf.
. The record contains no copy of the motion itself and contains no transcript of any oral motion.
. The рrosecution would also no doubt benefit from such a transcript.
. A determination that a defendant is indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel without cost does not automatically establish that the defendant is entitled to a free transcript.
People v. Church,