Jennifer Jenkins, V. Charles Corey

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: November 27, 2023
• Docket: 85125-0
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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No. 85125-0-I JENNIFER M. JENKINS, DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v.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: