Williams v. Alford

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Patrick Williams, Appellant,

v.

Tyisha Alford, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001423

Appeal From Richland County
Michelle M. Hurley, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-282
Submitted September 1, 2020 – Filed October 7, 2020

AFFIRMED

Patrick Williams, of Columbia, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Patrick Williams (Father) appeals a June 19, 2017 order from the
family court. On appeal, Father argues the family court erred by (1) rendering a
decision based on his health without proof from medical records, (2) ruling against
him after he complied with the family court's prior order, (3) finding he did not
properly serve Tyisha Alford (Mother), and (4) modifying his visitation when he
initiated the hearing by seeking a rule to show cause against Mother.
This court cannot conduct a de novo review because Father did not produce a
sufficient record. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d
666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and
legal issues de novo."); Taylor v. Taylor, 294 S.C. 296, 299, 363 S.E.2d 909, 911
(Ct. App. 1987) ("The burden is on the appellant to furnish a sufficient record on
appeal from which this court can make an intelligent review."); Rule 210(h),
SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in
the Record on Appeal."); State v. Hutto, 279 S.C. 131, 132, 303 S.E.2d 90, 91
(1983) (affirming the ruling of the trial court after finding the appellant "ha[d] not
met its burden of presenting a record which [was] sufficiently complete to permit
this [c]ourt to review the [trial] court's actions" because the appellant failed to
include trial testimony in the record on appeal).

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.