Jennifer Jenkins, V. Charles Corey ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 85125-0-I
JENNIFER M. JENKINS,
DIVISION ONE
Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
CHARLES D. COREY,
Respondent.
CHUNG, J. — Jennifer Jenkins appeals a judgment entered in favor of
Charles Corey following a January 2023 jury trial. Because she fails to provide an
adequate record to enable appellate review, we dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
From the parties’ briefing and the judgment designated for review, we glean
that Jenkins filed a lawsuit against Corey in Snohomish County Superior Court
stemming from a 2019 vehicle collision. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in Corey’s
favor, and Jenkins filed a notice of appeal.
Jenkins alleges a variety of trial errors and irregularities in the proceedings
below and seeks an award of damages or remand for a new trial. Among other
things, Jenkins claims that unknown individuals impersonated key witnesses at
trial; jury instructions were flawed; defense counsel engaged in misconduct and
violated certain criminal statutes; defense counsel’s law firm colluded with medical
No. 85125-0-I/2
providers to produce altered medical records; and the court admitted fraudulent
evidence related to Jenkins’s driving record.
DISCUSSION
Preliminarily, we note that Jenkins represents herself on appeal. While we
recognize the difficulties of self-representation, “ ‘the law does not distinguish
between one who elects to conduct his or her own legal affairs and one who seeks
assistance of counsel—both are subject to the same procedural and substantive
laws.’ ” In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993)
(quoting In re Marriage of Wherley, 34 Wn. App. 344, 349, 661 P.2d 155 (1983)).
In other words, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as attorneys. Id.Both must comply with all procedural rules on appeal, including the rule that the
appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to review their claims.
State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 619, 290 P.3d 942 (2012).
Pertinent here, “[t]he ‘record on review’ may consist of (1) a ‘report of
proceedings’, (2) ‘clerk’s papers’, [and] (3) exhibits.” RAP 9.1(a). The Rules on
Appeal further state that “[a] party should arrange for the transcription of all those
portions of the verbatim report of proceedings necessary to present the issues
raised on review,” RAP 9.2(b), and “[t]he clerk’s papers shall include, at a
minimum,” the summons and complaint and jury instructions given. RAP
9.6(b)(1)(C), (G). This court may either “ ‘decline to address a claimed error when
faced with a material omission in the record’ ” or “simply affirm the challenged
decision if the incomplete record before us is sufficient to support the decision.”
2
No. 85125-0-I/3
Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d at 619 (quoting State v. Wade, 138 Wn.2d 460, 465, 979
P.2d 850 (1999)).
Here, the record on appeal includes only 12 trial exhibits that appear to
depict vehicle damage and injuries. The record does not include any clerk’s papers
or report of proceedings that would explain the significance of the exhibits or allow
this court to evaluate any of the claims Jenkins raises. 1 In the context of Jenkins’s
assertions of trial errors and irregularities, the omissions are fatal to her claims.
We further note that additional deficiencies present a barrier to our review.
Appellants must, for example, provide “assignments of error,” and “argument in
support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority
and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(4), (6). And parties
may not include material in an appendix to a brief that is not contained in the record
on review. RAP 10.3(a)(8). Yet Jenkins fails to identify specific assignments of
error, cites only criminal statutes in this appeal of a civil case, references legal
concepts without citation to applicable legal authority, and provides as “exhibits”
attached to her opening brief material that is not part of the record on review. This
court will not consider insufficiently argued claims. State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6,
15, 785 P.2d 440 (1990). Nor will we consider material attached to briefing that is
outside the appellate record. Bartz v. State Dep’t of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit,
173 Wn. App. 522, 528 n.7, 297 P.3d 737 (2013).
1
We note that Jenkins sought authorization for the preparation of verbatim reports
of proceeding at public expense. In a June 2023 letter, the Supreme Court informed
Jenkins that, based on recent changes to RAP 15.2, it would take no action on the request.
3
No. 85125-0-I/4
The record before us is insufficient to allow us to review Jenkins’s
arguments. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
WE CONCUR:
4