William L. Sullivan v. County of Arlington

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
WILLIAM L. SULLIVAN
v. Record No. 2004-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
COUNTY OF ARLINGTON OCTOBER 17, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge
Michael W. Lieberman (Jonathan Shapiro; Jonathan Shapiro &
Associates, on briefs), for appellant.
Theophani K. Stamos, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney
(Molly H. Newton, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, on
brief), for appellee.
William L. Sullivan (appellant) was convicted of driving
while intoxicated in violation of Arlington County Code § 14.2-1
(Code § 18.2-266) and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,500
fine. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in: (1)
admitting the certificate of analysis when the examiner's
signature was not part of an attestation clause as required by
Code § 19.2-187; (2) finding that appellant's arrest was valid
under Code § 19.2-81; and (3) admitting the certificate of
analysis when the officer failed to offer him the choice between
a breath or blood test pursuant to Code § 18.2-268.2(B). Because
the record on appeal is inadequate for appellate review, we
affirm the trial court.
On June 5, 1993, while driving on Route 27, appellant struck
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
another car from behind. Officer Joseph Kantor (Kantor) of the
Arlington County Police Department arrived at the scene ten to
fifteen minutes after the accident. He detected alcohol on
appellant's breath and began investigating appellant for driving
under the influence. During the investigation, appellant had
chest pains, and Kantor called an ambulance. At the hospital,
appellant agreed to a blood test. Kantor later arrested
appellant for driving under the influence.
During trial, the Commonwealth's attorney examined Kantor
and offered the certificate of analysis into evidence.
Appellant's attorney interrupted: "We have an objection, Your
Honor. I'd like to be heard on it after I cross[-]examine
Officer Kantor. It's not going to be a long cross." The
transcript submitted on appeal ends with appellant cross-
examining Kantor and does not contain appellant's objections to
the certificate of analysis.
"[A]n appellant has the primary responsibility of ensuring
that a complete record is furnished to an appellate court so that
errors assigned may be decided properly." Ferguson v.
Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 189, 194, 390 S.E.2d 782, 785, aff'd in
part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 240 Va. ix, 396 S.E.2d 765(1990). "We cannot assume that appellant's objection and reasons
were proffered but not made a part of the record. Rule 5A:8
requires appellant to present a complete transcript for this
Court to consider his or her issues on appeal." Lee v. Lee, 12
2
Va. App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc).
Additionally, "[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be
considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was
stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the
ruling . . . ." Rule 5A:18.
We are unable to determine whether the trial court erred in
admitting the certificate of analysis because appellant failed to
present a complete transcript on appeal. The transcript
submitted by appellant shows that he objected to the certificate
of analysis and that the trial court allowed him to cross-examine
Kantor before arguing the objection. However, the transcript
does not contain any argument on the objection or the trial
court's ruling. Thus, Rule 5A:18 bars appellant's arguments on
appeal.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
3