Charles Adams v. Virginia Employment Commission ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
CHARLES ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2357-11-4 PER CURIAM
MARCH 6, 2012
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Joanne F. Alper, Judge
(Charles D. Adams, pro se, on brief).
(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Peay,
Assistant Attorney General - I, on brief), for appellee.
Charles Adams appeals from a June 17, 2011 final order of the circuit court granting the
Virginia Employment Commission’s (the Commission) motion to dismiss Adams’ petition for
judicial review of the Commission’s finding that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits. Adams includes twenty-seven “questions presented” in his opening brief outlining his
grievances with his former employer. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss Adams’ appeal
to this Court for Adams’ failure to comply with numerous rules of this Court.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without
merit.
Rule 5A:20 sets forth the requirements for an opening brief. Rule 5A:20(b) mandates
“[a] brief statement of the nature of the case and of the material proceedings in the trial court
which shall omit references to any paper filed or action taken that does not relate to the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
assignments of error.” Adams included a lengthy “statement of case” including more argument
than references to the material proceedings.
Effective July 1, 2010, Rule 5A:20(c) was revised to state that an appellant’s opening
brief shall contain a “statement of the assignments of error with a clear and exact reference to the
page(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each assignment of error
was preserved in the trial court.” Pursuant to the revised rules, this Court considers only
assignments of error and, as such, will not consider issues listed as questions presented. Adams
included no “assignment of error” and included no references indicating where any assignment
of error was preserved in the trial court.
Rule 5A:20(d) requires “[a] clear and concise statement of the facts that relate to the
assignments of error, with references to the pages of the transcript, written statement, record or
appendix,” and Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that the brief include “principles of law and the
authorities” relating to each assignment of error. Appellant has the burden of showing that
reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d
857, 859 (1992). Mere unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.”
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Furthermore this Court
“will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct
deficiencies in a brief.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in
order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims . . . .” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6
Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) (en banc). Appellant includes no references
to any transcripts, statement of facts or the appendix. Nor does he include any principles of law
or authority to support his arguments.
Rule 5A:18 states in pertinent part, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as
a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the
-2-
ruling . . . .” As noted above, Adams makes no reference to where any objection was preserved
and our review of the record indicates Adams did not even object to the final order from which
he appeals.
Further, the appendix does not comply with Rule 5A:25 as it is incomplete, contains
exhibits not part of the record, and fails to contain initial pleadings or even the order from which
Adams appeals.
The appendix must include “any testimony and other
incidents of the case germane to the questions presented,”
Rule 5A:25(c)(3), and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of
the case that can reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A:25(c)(6).
“The appendix is a tool vital to the function of the appellate
process in Virginia. . . . By requiring the inclusion of all parts of
the record germane to the issues, the Rules promote the cause of
plenary justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254
S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an appendix
that complies with the Rules, is “essential to an informed collegiate
decision.” Id.Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003).
Adams’ opening brief also fails to comply with Rule 5A:4, and the appendix fails to
comply with Rule 5A:24.
Despite receiving notice from the Court regarding the deficiencies with his brief and
appendix and being advised he could request an extension of time to remedy the problems,
Adams failed to correct any of the defects with his brief or appendix. We have previously stated
that “‘[a] court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent
authority.’” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 850, 667 S.E.2d 857, 865 (2008) (quoting
Jones v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 730, 734, 660 S.E.2d 343, 345 (2008)).
We have reviewed the record and find these defects in totality to be significant. See Jay
v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) (“[T]he Court of Appeals
should . . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of [the Rules of
-3-
Court] is insignificant.”). Thus, we will not consider appellant’s arguments on appeal.
Theisman v. Theisman, 22 Va. App. 557, 572, 471 S.E.2d 809, 816, aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23
Va. App. 697, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of
court.” Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999).
Finally, we also note that the order from which Adams appeals to this Court addressed
only the issue of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over the case due to Adams’ failure to
comply with the mandatory requirements of Code § 60.2-625(A). Among his numerous
allegations of error, at no point does he actually challenge the circuit court’s ruling on that
matter.
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-4-