Van Durr v. Kator Scott, Chartered
Van Durr v. Kator Scott, Chartered
Opinion of the Court
Winzoir Van Durr appeals pro se from a judgment in favor of Kator & Scott, Chartered, in the latter’s breach of contract suit against him for unpaid legal bills. Van Durr complains of the conduct of the trial, alluding to the improper introduction of allegedly manufactured evidence, the admission of hearsay and related rulings of the court. In addition, Van Durr contends that the trial court wrongly permitted Kator & Scott to disobey a court order to furnish discovery. Kator & Scott denies Van Durr’s allegations and argues that they have no support in the record before us.
We are unable to reach the merits of any of Van Durr’s contentions. We must affirm the judgment of the trial court because Van Durr has not presented us with a record sufficient to show affirmatively that the trial court committed any error. In particular, Van Durr chose not to order and include in the record on appeal a transcript of the trial or other proceedings at which the court may have addressed the issues that he would have us consider. Upon taking this appeal, Van Durr filled out a Designation of Record and Statement Regarding Transcript, in which he declined to order a transcript and cheeked a box to state that he considered “no transcript necessary for appeal.”
This court has explained the requirement that appellants bear the burden of presenting a sufficient record on appeal as follows:
A judgment of any trial court is presumed to be valid. Harvey v. United States, 385 A.2d 36, 37 (D.C.App. 1978); see United States v. Alston, 412 A.2d 351, 359 (D.C.App. 1980) (en banc). A losing party who notes an appeal from such a judgment bears the burden of “convincing the appellate court that the trial court erred.” Harvey v. United States, supra, 385 A.2d at 37. In meeting that burden, it is appellant’s duty to present this court with a record sufficient to show affirmatively that error occurred. T.V.T. Corp. v. Basiliko, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 181, 183, 257 F.2d 185, 187 (1958). The responsibility of perfecting the record remains with appellant and “cannot be shifted to either the trial court or this court.” Brown v. Plant, 157 A.2d 289, 291 (D.C.Mun.App. 1960).
Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., 453 A.2d 110, 111 (D.C. 1982) (some citations omitted). We have reiterated these principles in quite a large number of subsequent cases.
The normal, and much preferred, method of presenting the record where an appellant seeks to challenge rulings made in the course of trial or other hearing is by means of a verbatim transcript ordered
We appreciate that Van Durr is proceeding on appeal without a lawyer
Lacking a transcript in this appeal, we have only the unsupported (and conflicting) statements of alleged fact in the parties’ briefs. “Appellate review is limited to matters appearing in the record before us, and we cannot base our review of errors upon statements of counsel which are unsupported by that record.” Cobb, 453 A.2d at 112 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we have no choice but to affirm the judgment on appeal.
So ordered.
. See, e.g., Spires v. Spires, 743 A.2d 186, 191 (D.C. 1999); Mbakpuo v. Ekeanyanwu, 738 A.2d 776, 780-81 (D.C. 1999); Wright v. Robbins, 733 A.2d 948, 949 (D.C. 1999); Stockard v. Moss, 706 A.2d 561, 567 (D.C. 1997); Stebbins v. Stebbins, 673 A.2d 184, 188 n. 5 (D.C. 1996); Mack v. Zaleo Realty, Inc., 630 A.2d 1136, 1138-39 (D.C. 1993); Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Adams, 534 A.2d 292, 294 (D.C. 1987); House of Wines, Inc. v. Sumter, 510 A.2d 492, 497 n. 9 (D.C. 1986).
. In "extraordinary” cases, a formal statement of proceedings and evidence, prepared by the appellant or both parties "with special leave of this court" and approved by the trial court, may be substituted for a transcript. See D.C.App. R. 10(c)-(d); Cobb, 453 A.2d at 111; see also Cole v. United States, 478 A.2d 277, 283-85 (D.C. 1984). Van Durr has not sought to utilize this alternative method of presenting us with an adequate record for appellate review.
. The court has issued a "Pro Se Guide” to assist pro se appellants such as Van Durr. Among other things, the guide explains how to order necessary transcript, and informs the pro se appellant that "[t]he party appealing an order or judgment of the Superior Court must identify and designate any part of the record needed in order for the appeals court to understand the claims and that the trial court committed some error in deciding the case.”
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Winzoir VAN DURR v. KATOR & SCOTT, CHARTERED
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published