COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales , Chaney and Senior Judge Annunziata

DANIEL LEE BOWMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1126

- 22

- 3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 8, 2023 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARRO L L COUNTY

Brett L. Geisler , Judge ( William B. Vaughan , on brief s ) , for appellant. ( Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General ; John Beamer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Daniel Lee Bowman was convicted of eight counts of distributing a Schedule II controlled
substance to a minor and one count of obstruction of justice

. On appeal, Bowman contends that
the trial court abused its discretion in failing to remove a certain juror from the jury pool, in accepting sentencing guidelines that reflected that Bowman’s eight mandatory minimum sentences would run consecutively , and in finding that Bowman had not accepted responsibility
for his crimes. A fter examining the briefs and record before us on appea l in this case , we find that we are unable to consider the merits of any of his assignments of error because Bowman failed to timely file the transcripts ( or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript ) as required under Rule 5A:8. Consequently, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because

“ the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided, and the appellant has not argued that the case law should be overturned, extended, modified, or reversed .” Code § 17.1

- 403(ii)( b ); Rule 5A:27( b ). Therefore , we affirm his conviction s
.

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

- 413 (A)

. UNPUBLISHED- 2

- BACKGROUND Bowman was convicted of eight counts of distributing a Schedule II controlled substance
to a minor and obstruction of justice . On July 18, 2022, the trial court ent ered a final sentencing
order in this case. The trial court sentenc ed Bowman to ten years of incarceration with five years suspended for each of the distribution convictions and six months in jail for the obstruction
conviction. Bowman noted his appeal to this Court on July 27 , 2022. On September 16, 2022,
Bowman mo ved this Court to extend the deadline to timely file the transcript s in this case. This Court granted Bowman’s request, extending the transcript filing deadline to October 27, 2022.
On Octobe r 21, 2022, Bowman moved this Court to grant him an additional extension of time to file the transcript s in this case. This Court again granted Bowman’s request, extending the transcript filing deadline to December 1, 2022. On December 5, 2022, Bowman fi led a third motion for extension of time to file the transcript s in this case, which this Court denied because “the motion was not filed by the previously

- extended due date.” Bowman eventually filed the transcript s with the trial court on January 3, 2023

— 169 days after the entry of the final order in
this case

. Bowman never file d a written statement of facts in lieu of the transcripts. 1
ANALYSIS “On appeal, we presume the judgment of the trial court is correct.” Bay v. Commonwealth , 60 Va. App. 520, 528 (2012)

. In addition, “[a]n appellate court ’ s review of the
case is limited to the record on appeal .” Wilkins v. Commonwealth , 64 Va. App. 711, 717 (2015) ( quoting Turner v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986) ), aff ’ d , 292 Va. 2 (2016)

.

1 On January 30 , 2023, Bowman filed a motion for delayed appeal under Code § 19.2

- 321.1. This Court notified defense counsel that the motion for a delayed appeal was premature because this appeal was still currently pending and that , therefore, this Court would take no action upon the motion.- 3

-

“It is appellant’s burden to provide this Court with a record from which it can decide the issues
in the case.” Clarke v. Commonwealth , 60 Va. App. 190, 199 (2012)

. “In the absence [of a sufficient record], we will not consider the point.” Dixon v. Dixon , 71 Va. App. 709, 716 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Robinson v. Robinson , 50 Va. A pp. 189, 197 (2007) )

. Under Rule 5A:8(a), “ [ t ] he transcript of any proceeding is a part of the record when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court no later than 60 days after entry of the final judgment.” “If .

. . the transcript [or st atement of facts] is indispensable to the determination of the case, then the requirements for making the transcript [or statement of facts] a part of the record on appeal must be strictly adhered to.” Bay , 60 Va. App. at 528 (alterations in original) (qu oting Turner , 2 Va. App. at 99). “ This Court has no authority to make exceptions to the filing requirements set out in the Rules.” Shiembob v. Shiembob , 55 Va. App. 234, 246 (2009) (quoting Turner , 2 Va. App. at 99); see also Bay , 60 Va. App. at 528

- 29. “Whether the record is sufficiently complete to permit our review on appeal is a question of law subject to our de novo
review.” Bay , 60 Va. App. at 529. Given that Bowman did not file his transcripts until 169 days after the entry of the final order and given that he did not file his transcripts within the additional time allotted by this Court, Bowman undoubtedly did not timely file the transcript s in this case

. Thus, the record on appeal does not contain timely

- filed transcripts of Bowman’s t rial on October 7 and 8, 2021, or Bowman’s sentencing hearings on February 2, 2022 , and May 25, 2022. After reviewing t he
record and the briefs in this case, w e conclude that timely

- filed transcript s , or a timely

- filed
written statement of facts in lieu o f a transcript, are indispensable to a determination of Bowman’s arguments raised on appeal

. See Smith v. Commonwealth , 32 Va. App. 766, 772- 4

-

(2000); Turner , 2 Va. App. at 99

- 100. Therefore, we cannot reach the merits of hi s assignments
of error. Rule 5A :8(b)(4)(ii). Consequently, we affirm Bowman’s conviction s
. 2
CONCLUSION
For t he foregoing reasons, we do not disturb the judgment of the trial court

. Affirmed.

2 In addition, we note that the trial court sentenced Bowman to the minimum sentence s allowed under the statute. Bowman was convicted of eight counts of distributing a Schedule II controlled subs tance to a minor, in violation of Code § 18.2

- 255. That statute provides that “[a] ny person violating this provision shall upon conviction be imprisoned in a state correctional facility for a period not less than 10 nor more than 50 years
. . . . Five years of the sentence imposed for a conviction under this section involving a Schedule I or II controlled substance

. . . shall be a mandatory minimum sentence

. ” (Emphas e s added). Here, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years for each of Bowman’s eight convictions under Code § 18.2

- 255 and suspended five years of each ten

- year sent ence. Thus, Bowman was required to serve only five years of each sentence, which is the mandatory minimum under the statute.