COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges AtLee, Friedman and Senior Judge Clements

DEREK TRINIDAD BLOCKHUS MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1823

- 22

- 4 PER CURIAM JUNE 6, 2023 MARIA DEL MAR TORTAJADA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

Alfred D. Swersky , Judge Designate ( Derek T. Blockhus , on brief ) , pro se
. No brief for appellee

.
Derek Blockhus appeals a protective order the circuit court entered in favor of Ma r ia Del Mar Tortajada, in connection with pending divorce proceedings

. On appeal , Blockhus alleges that the circuit court erred in granting the protective order because the evidence was insufficie nt to prove
that he was abusive and , as such, the protective order was un necessary to protect Tortajada ’ s health and safety. After examining the brief and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “ the appe al is wholly without merit. ” Code § 17.1

- 403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). The record on appeal is insufficient for this Court to reach the issues that
Blockhus raises because he has failed to file a transcript , or a written statement of facts in lieu of

a tran script , for the August 15 , 2022 hearing

. A transcript , or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript , for that hearing is indispensable for review of Blockhus ’ assignments of error.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1

- 413

. UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

For the following reasons, the circuit court ’ s judgment is affirmed , and we remand for correction of a clerical error in the protective order

. BACKGROUND

“ When reviewing a trial court ’ s decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefi t of any reasonable inferences. ” Nielsen v.
Nielsen , 73 Va. App. 370, 377 (2021) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon , 40 Va. App. 255, 258 (2003)). Here, Tortajada is the prevailing party. Tortajada filed a petition for protective order based on family abuse. In the accompanying affidavit, Tortajada alleged that Blockhus had threatened to “ destroy ” her and had a history of

“ verbal abuse, mental and emotional abuse. ” Tortajada also contended that Blockhus had once pointed a gun at her “

jokingly ” and that she “ suffered domestic violence ” from Blockhus, in front of
her children. Tortajada stated that Blockhus caused her “ mental and emotional impairment with his verbal abuse/stalking to the point of having to seek medica l care. ” Finally, Tortajada affirmed that
she was “ physically afraid ” of Blockhus and feared that he would “ get physical at any point as he is
volatile. ” On March 29, 2022, the Prince William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (JDR court) entered a protective ord er and ordered that it remain in effect until September 30,
2022 , at 11:59 p.m. Blockhus appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court held a hearing on August 15, 2022. 1 Following the hearing, the circuit
court dissolved the JDR court ’ s protective order and entered a new protective order that would
remain in effect until August 15 , 202 4 , at 11:59 p.m. Blockhus appeal s
.

1 The record does not include a transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, from this hearing.- 3

- ANALYSIS On appeal, Blockhus argues that insufficient evidence supported the circuit court ’ s entry of the protective order. Blockhus alleges Tortajada offered no evidence to prove that Blockhus was abusive. The record does not contain a transcript , or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript , of the August 15 , 2022 hearing. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c). If an appellant “ fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission wi ll not be
considered. ” Rule 5A:8(b)(4 )(ii); see Browning v. Browning , 68 Va. App. 19, 30 (2017) (applying rule).

“ On appeal, we presume the judgment of the trial court is correct

. . . . ” Bay v.
Commonwealth , 60 Va. App. 520, 528 (2012). “ The burden is upon the appellant to provide [the appellate court] with a record which substantiates the claim of error. In the absence [of a sufficient record], we will not consider the point. ” Dixon v. Dixon , 71 Va. App. 709, 716 (2020) (alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Robinson , 50 Va. A pp. 189, 197 (2007)). Even though Blockhus is proceeding pro se , he still “ must comply with the rules of court. ” Francis v.
Francis , 30 Va. App. 584, 591 (1999); see Townes v. Commonwealth , 234 Va. 307, 319 (1987) (holding that “ [a] defendant who represe nts himself is no less bound by the rules of procedure and substantive law than a defendant represented by counsel ” (quoting Church v.
Commonwealth , 230 Va. 208, 213 (1985))).
We have reviewed the record and Blockhus ’ brief. As noted above, Blockhus chall enges the sufficiency of the evidence warranting a protective order. In the absence of a transcript , or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript , of the August 15, 2022 hearing, however , we are unable to
consider what evidence and arguments the circuit court considered in entering the protective order

. Moreover, w ithout a complete record of the arguments Blockhus made or the positions he took at- 4

-

the August 15 , 2022 hearing, we cannot know that Blockhus presented the specific argume nt s he advances on appeal to the circuit court. See Rule 5A:18 (an appellate court will only consider arguments that timely were raised in the trial court). We conclude that a transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, from the August 15 , 2022 hearing is indispensable to a
determination of Blockhus ’ assignments of error. See Bay , 60 Va. App. at 528

- 29. We note, however, that the protective order misspells Tortajada ’ s name. Therefore, we affirm the circuit

court ’ s order and rem and solely for correction of the clerical error. Code § 8.01

- 428(B); see,
e.g. , Bagley v. Commonwealth , 73 Va. App. 1, 30 n.10 (2021)

. 2
CONCLUSION
For t he foregoing reasons, the circuit court ’ s ruling is affirmed

. 3 Affirmed and remanded

.

2 Both Blockhus and Tortajada moved for an award of appellate attorney fees. “ The decision of whether to award attorney ’ s fees and costs incurred on appeal is discretionary. ” Friedman v. Smith , 68 Va. App. 529, 545 (2018) ; see also Rule 5A:30(b). On consideration of the record before us, we deny Tortajada ’ s requests for an award of attorney fees incurred on appeal.

3 Considering our rulings herein, w e deny Tortajada ’ s motions to dismiss and Blockhus ’

“ M otion to D ismiss [Tortajada ] ’ s S econd A ttempt to D ismiss [Blockhus ’ ] R ight to A ppeal. ”