1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 126,689

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

WESLEY TANKSLEY,

Appellant,

v.

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Lane District Court; BRUCE T. GATTERMAN, judge. Submitted without oral 

argument. Opinion filed October 4, 2024. Affirmed.

Wesley Tanksley, appellant pro se.

Ashley R. Iverson, staff attorney, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, for 

appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., GARDNER and CLINE,JJ.

PER CURIAM: Wesley Tanksley appeals the district court's decision affirming the 

Kansas Department of Revenue's action suspending his driver's license. On appeal, we 

review the district court's findings for substantial competent evidence. Casper v. Kansas 

Dept. of Revenue, 309 Kan. 1211, 1213, 442 P.3d 1038 (2019). Because Tanksley failed 

to include a transcript of the district court hearing in the record on appeal, we are unable 

to determine what evidence was presented, let alone whether it was substantial. 

Accordingly, we must affirm.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tanksley appealed the administrative suspension of his driver's license in April 

2021 for "[r]efusal to take a chemical analysis test."

After a hearing the administrative hearing officer affirmed the suspension.

Tanksley appealed to the district court, which upheld the administrative hearing 

officer's decision after a bench trial. The district court also denied Tanksley's motion to 

reconsider.

Tanksley timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Tanksley argues that (1) no reasonable grounds existed to have him tested under 

the Kansas implied consent statute, (2) the arresting officer's failure to follow protocol 

prevented a finding that he refused the breath test, and (3) his due process rights were 

violated by not allowing him to call a particular witness.

Appeals of administrative suspensions of driver's licenses remain subject to review 

under the Kansas Judicial Review Act. K.S.A. 8-259(a); K.S.A. 8-1020(o), (p). The party 

asserting error bears the burden of proving the agency's action was invalid. K.S.A. 77-

621(a)(1); K.S.A. 8-1020(q).

Appellate courts, in a driver's license suspension case, review the district court's 

factual findings for substantial competent evidence. Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 

310 Kan. 454, 469, 447 P.3d 959 (2019); Casper, 309 Kan. at 1213. Substantial 

competent evidence includes evidence that has relevance and substance while also 
3

providing a substantial basis to resolve issues of fact. Creecy, 310 Kan. at 469. Appellate 

courts also do not reweigh evidence but determine if the record supports the district 

court's decision. Jarvis v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 312 Kan. 156, 171-72, 473 P.3d 869 

(2020).

Here, Tanksley failed to request that the transcript of the district court bench trial 

be included in the record on appeal. In fact, he filed a notice with this court that "he is not 

requesting transcripts for [this matter]."

The burden is on the party making a claim to designate a record sufficient to 

present its points to the appellate court and to establish its claims. Friedman v. Kansas 

State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636, 644, 294 P.3d 287 (2013). There is no way for 

us to decide whether substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's factual 

findings when we do not know what evidence was presented at trial.

Accordingly, we have no choice but to affirm the district court's decision.

Affirmed.