Utah Court of Appeals

What happens when an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal? Ajinwo v. Chileshe Explained

2018 UT App 39
No. 20170051-CA
March 15, 2018
Affirmed

Summary

Ajinwo appealed the district court’s dismissal of his paternity and custody petition following an order to show cause hearing. The hearing was not recorded, and despite being aware of Rule 11(g) procedures to reconstruct the record, Ajinwo failed to utilize this mechanism and opposed appellee’s motion to supplement the record.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Okechukwu Ajinwo filed a paternity and custody petition that was dismissed by the district court following an order to show cause hearing on December 21, 2016. The court issued the order to show cause sua sponte, and after both attorneys appeared and addressed the case status, the court dismissed Ajinwo’s amended petition without prejudice. Critically, the hearing was not recorded, leaving no transcript of the proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

On appeal, Ajinwo claimed the district court violated his constitutional rights to parental care, due process, and court access by dismissing his petition sua sponte without providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard or adequate justification. However, the dispositive issue became whether the appellate court could review these claims without an adequate record of the hearing.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals emphasized that appellants bear the burden of providing an adequate record to support their allegations of error. Under Rule 11(e)(2) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellants must include transcripts of all evidence relevant to challenged findings. When Ajinwo learned no recording existed, he failed to invoke Rule 11(g), which allows appellants to prepare a statement of proceedings when transcripts are unavailable. Instead, he opposed appellee’s motion to supplement the record and chose to proceed with the existing inadequate record.

The court applied the established principle that when presented with an inadequate record, appellate courts presume the regularity of proceedings and cannot evaluate trial court actions. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of record preservation in appellate practice. When hearings are not recorded, practitioners must immediately utilize Rule 11(g) procedures to reconstruct the record through witness statements and party recollections. Failing to do so results in forfeiture of meaningful appellate review, regardless of the potential merit of underlying constitutional claims.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Ajinwo v. Chileshe

Citation

2018 UT App 39

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20170051-CA

Date Decided

March 15, 2018

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

An appellant who fails to provide an adequate record on appeal cannot obtain review of alleged trial court errors, and the appellate court will presume the regularity of the proceedings below.

Standard of Review

Not applicable – appeal dismissed due to inadequate record

Practice Tip

When a hearing is not recorded, immediately utilize Rule 11(g) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure to prepare a statement of proceedings rather than proceeding with an inadequate record.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Utah County v. Alexanderson

    October 14, 2005

    A petition for extraordinary relief under Rule 65B is invalid when the petitioner failed to pursue an available direct statutory appeal and the time for such appeal has expired.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Barriga

    November 7, 2019

    Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of defendant’s parole status where the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to establish identity, making any objection futile.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.