concurring in result with opinion.
Although I agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in denying Feu-ston’s motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C), I respectfully concur only in the result because I believe the majority’s holding is too broad given the fact-sensitive nature of Rule 4(C) inquiries.
The majority concludes that the trial court or prosecutor must have actual notice of the defendant’s whereabouts, Op. at 550-51, and even if some other agent of the State — including the agent charged with finding him and bringing him before the trial court pursuant to a bench warrant if he fails to appear in court as ordered— has actual knowledge of the defendant’s whereabouts, that knowledge should not be imputed to the trial court or prosecutor if they do not have actual knowledge themselves, id. at 551. I would not say this is true in every instance. Feuston’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference before any trial date had been set without notice to the State of his whereabouts tolls the Rule 4(C) clock.7 However, consistent with my position in Werner, I believe the issue of notice is extremely fact sensitive, see 818 N.E.2d at 32, and if there was indisputable evidence that officials at the Jay County Jail were aware Feuston was incarcerated in the Delaware County Jail during the pendency of his Jay County case and further, indisputable evidence of when they became aware of Feuston’s incarceration, I would hold that the trial court and the prosecutor were sufficiently notified of Feuston’s whereabouts to begin the Rule 4(C) clock running as of that date.
I also disagree with the majority’s citation of Johnson to support its decision. In addition to the facts the majority acknowledges distinguish Johnson from this case, in Johnson, there is no question but that no authorities in Marion County knew of the defendant’s incarceration in Johnson County. Here, there is at least the suggestion that Jay County authorities knew of Feuston’s incarceration in Delaware County. I do not believe Johnson necessarily lends support to the majority’s conclusion that it is the trial court’s knowledge and not the sheriffs or some other agent of the State’s knowledge that is singularly relevant. See Op. at 551-52.
Having made those points, however, I acknowledge that in this case, there is only evidence suggesting that the Jay County Jail became aware of Feuston’s incarceration in Delaware County in August 2009. It is Feuston’s burden on appeal to give us a record that supports his claims.8 See Delao v. State, 940 N.E.2d 849, 852 (Ind. Ct.App.2011) (“On appeal, the defendant carries the burden of presenting a record for sustaining his argument.”), trans. denied. Because the record does not indisputably show that any Jay County authorities were aware of his incarceration in *554Delaware County prior to the return of the warrant on August 17, 2010, and therefore the Rule 4(C) clock was tolled until that date, I concur in the result reached by the majority affirming the trial court’s denial of Feuston’s motion for discharge.
. Although the trial court could have set a trial date at that time in Feuston's absence and notified him by mail of the setting, I acknowledge that would raise due process issues down the line if he continued to absent himself and proof that he received notice of the trial date setting could not be procured.
. As the majority notes, Delaware County Jail records show Feuston was checked out to attend court in Jay County on August 19, 2009, but the Jay County court records do not show that he appeared in court on that day. See Op. at 551; Appendix of Appellant at 2 (Jay County Superior Court CCS); 45-46 (fax communication from Delaware County Jail). Feuston could have resolved the conflict in the evidence and proven his contention that he appeared in Jay County on that date in a number of ways — by for instance, calling as a witness at the Rule 4(C) hearing the officer who transported him. He failed to do so, and we are therefore left with an unclear record.