Kelsey Newberry v. Tyler C. Godsil

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 59216-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

March 18, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II KELSEY NEWBERRY, No. 59216-9-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION TYLER GODSIL,

Appellant.

PRICE, J. — Tyler Godsil appeals the superior court’s order renewing a protection order

with K.N. as the protected party. The record on appeal, however, is insufficient to allow us to

review Godsil’s alleged errors. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

In January 2023, the superior court entered a domestic violence, stalking, and

antiharassment protection order protecting K.N. from Godsil. Eleven months later, in December

2023, K.N. motioned the superior court for renewal of the protection order. Following a hearing

during which both Godsil and K.N. provided testimony, the superior court granted K.N.’s motion

and entered a modified domestic violence protection order the same day.

Godsil appeals. No. 59216-9-II

ANALYSIS

Godsil’s appeal involves multiple assignments of error related to the renewal of the

protection order, specifically: (1) the superior court erred by renewing the protection order because

the original order was void, (2) the superior court erred by modifying the original provisions of

the protection order as part of the renewal, (3) the superior court erred by finding that he failed to

prove a substantial change of circumstances, (4) the superior court erred by renewing the protection

order because K.N. did not need it, (5) the superior court erred by modifying the type of protection

order K.N. requested, (6) the superior court was biased, allowed K.N. to present hearsay and

fraudulent evidence, and did not give him a fair and equal opportunity to defend himself, and (7)

he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

But to support these assignments of error, the only parts of the record that Godsil has

designated are the relevant orders (the original protection order and the renewal orders), the motion

to renew the original protection order, and the clerk’s minutes from the hearings. Godsil has failed

to designate any hearing transcripts—missing are verbatim records of the initial protection order

hearing in January 2023 as well as the renewal hearing in December 2023. Godsil has also failed

to designate K.N.’s original petition or any supporting materials from either party related to the

two hearings.

“The appellant has the burden of perfecting the record so that the court has before it all the

evidence relevant to the issue.” In re the Marriage of Haugh, 58 Wn. App. 1, 6, 790 P.2d 1266

(1990); RAP 9.2(b). In this, Godsil has failed. All of the alleged errors require review of the

evidence or reasons supporting the superior court’s decision. But without transcripts of the

hearings or the evidence presented, we have no ability to accurately evaluate the actions of the trial

2 No. 59216-9-II

court. See Olmsted v. Mulder, 72 Wn. App. 169, 183, 863 P.2d 1355 (1993) (“We cannot reach

the merits of [appellant’s] arguments because he has failed to provide us with a sufficient trial

record.”), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1025 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

PRICE, J. We concur:

CRUSER, C.J.

LEE, J.