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. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 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 
 2 

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 crossexamining 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 
 3 

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.