1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No . 1 2 6, 689

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

W ESLEY T ANKSLEY , Appell ant ,

v.

K ANSAS D EPARTMENT OF R EVENUE ,

Appell ee

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Lane District Court; B RUCE T. G ATTERMAN , judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed October 4 , 202 4

. Affirmed

.

Wesley Tanksley
, appellan t pro se

.

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

B efore A RNOLD

- B URGER , C.J., G ARDNER and C LINE , J J

.

P ER C URIAM : 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 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

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.

A NALYSIS

Tank s ley 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 also3

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.