Kelsey Newberry, Respondent v. Tyler C. Godsil, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
KELSEY NEWBERRY, No. 59216-9-II
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
TYLER GODSIL,
Appellant.
PRICE, J. — Tyler Godsil appeals the superior court’s order renewing a protection order
with K.N. as the protected party. The record on appeal, however, is insufficient to allow us to
review Godsil’s alleged errors. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
In January 2023, the superior court entered a domestic violence, stalking, and
antiharassment protection order protecting K.N. from Godsil. Eleven months later, in December
2023, K.N. motioned the superior court for renewal of the protection order. Following a hearing
during which both Godsil and K.N. provided testimony, the superior court granted K.N.’s motion
and entered a modified domestic violence protection order the same day.
Godsil appeals.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
March 18, 2025

No. 59216-9-II
2
ANALYSIS
Godsil’s appeal involves multiple assignments of error related to the renewal of the
protection order, specifically: (1) the superior court erred by renewing the protection order because
the original order was void, (2) the superior court erred by modifying the original provisions of
the protection order as part of the renewal, (3) the superior court erred by finding that he failed to
prove a substantial change of circumstances, (4) the superior court erred by renewing the protection
order because K.N. did not need it, (5) the superior court erred by modifying the type of protection
order K.N. requested, (6) the superior court was biased, allowed K.N. to present hearsay and
fraudulent evidence, and did not give him a fair and equal opportunity to defend himself, and (7)
he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
But to support these assignments of error, the only parts of the record that Godsil has
designated are the relevant orders (the original protection order and the renewal orders), the motion
to renew the original protection order, and the clerk’s minutes from the hearings. Godsil has failed
to designate any hearing transcripts—missing are verbatim records of the initial protection order
hearing in January 2023 as well as the renewal hearing in December 2023. Godsil has also failed
to designate K.N.’s original petition or any supporting materials from either party related to the
two hearings.
“The appellant has the burden of perfecting the record so that the court has before it all the
evidence relevant to the issue.” In re the Marriage of Haugh, 58 Wn. App. 1, 6, 790 P.2d 1266
(1990); RAP 9.2(b). In this, Godsil has failed. All of the alleged errors require review of the
evidence or reasons supporting the superior court’s decision. But without transcripts of the
hearings or the evidence presented, we have no ability to accurately evaluate the actions of the trial

No. 59216-9-II
3
court. See Olmsted v. Mulder, 72 Wn. App. 169, 183, 863 P.2d 1355 (1993) (“We cannot reach
the merits of [appellant’s] arguments because he has failed to provide us with a sufficient trial
record.”), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1025 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
PRICE, J.
We concur:
CRUSER, C.J.
LEE, J.