The defendant has the responsibility to ask for the transcript when he needs it. See OCGA § 5-6-42 (“Where there is a transcript of evidence and proceedings to be included in the record on appeal, the appellant shall cause the transcript to be prepared and filed as provided by Code Section 5-6-41[.]”); State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 , 212-213 (271 SE2d 133 ) (1980). Once the State has satisfied its obligation under OCGA §§ 17-8-5 (a) and 5-6-41 (a) by providing a verbatim transcript, if the defendant believes the transcript omits or misrepresents a necessary part of the proceeding, he has the responsibility to seek to correct the transcript in that respect.
[Cit.]" State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 (1) ( 271 SE2d 133) (1980). "Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).
Where the appealing party is the defendant in a felony case, and where the defendant states in his notice of appeal that a transcript is to be transmitted as part of the appellate record, it is the defendant's statutorily mandated duty to cause the court reporter to prepare and file an original and one copy of the transcript with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal unless an extension of time is obtained. State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Here, appellant Jordan obtained an indefinite extension of time for the filing of the transcript, and the transcript was not prepared by the court reporter until approximately three years and four months after completion of the trial.
Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131 ( 200 S.E.2d 271) (1973). However, in State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980), we held that although the law in this regard is mandatory, there is no time limit on the state in fulfilling this duty. Since at present there is no time limit or statute of limitations on the filing of a habeas corpus petition, we cannot find that the defendant is barred from requesting his transcript by lapse of time.
Furthermore, as the State failed to ensure that the trial transcript was prepared, despite Brock’s requests, we vacate the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial and remand the case to allow Brock to file an amended motion for new trial with the aid of a trial transcript. This case differs from those cited by the State, such as State v. Hart , 246 Ga. 212, 271 S.E.2d 133 (1980), because here the trial court did not make an express finding that Brock had caused an unreasonable delay in requesting the trial transcript. See id. at 214 (2), 271 S.E.2d 133.
OCGA § 5-6-42 places the burden upon the appellant, not the lower court clerk, to cause transcripts to be prepared and filed. See, e.g., State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 , 213 (1) (271 SE2d 133 ) (1980). 3. We cannot consider the claims raised in connection with C. W.’s adjudication of delinquency on August 20, 2014, as a notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days.
Their counsel was charged with knowledge that they bore the responsibility for timely arranging for a transcript. See Leonard v. Ognio, 201 Ga. App. 260, 262 ( 410 S.E.2d 814) (1991); see also State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 (1) ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980); OCGA § 5-6-42. Appellants offered no evidence justifying their failure to order the transcript.
(Cit.)' State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions [and all other proceedings which may be called into question on appeal] would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).
It is the duty of the judge to direct the recordation of the trial proceedings in felony cases. OCGA § 17-8-5; State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212 ( 271 S.E.2d 133). But where the transcript does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, it is the duty of the complaining party to have the record completed pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41.
[Cit.]" State v. Hart, 246 Ga. 212, 213 ( 271 S.E.2d 133) (1980). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (d), preliminary motions would be included in the proceedings subject to OCGA § 17-8-5 (a).