NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
AUSTIN THOMAS, 
 
                          Appellant/Defendant, 
 
 
                              v. 
 
ALFRED CANNONIER, d/b/a MOTOR TREND, 
 
 
 
                            Appellee/Plaintiff. 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
S. Ct. Civ.  No. 2007/042 
Re:  Super. Ct. S.C. No. 15/2007 
 
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands 
Considered:  December 17, 2008 
Filed:  April 7, 2009 
 
BEFORE: 
  Rhys S. Hodge, Chief Justice; Maria M. Cabret, Associate Justice; and 
  Ive Arlington Swan, Associate Justice. 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
Austin Thomas 
St. Thomas, USVI 
 
 
Pro Se 
 
 
 
 
OPINION OF THE COURT 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This is an appeal from a small claims matter in which Alfred Cannonier, doing business 
as Motor Trend (“Motor Trend”) sued Austin Thomas (“Thomas”).  Motor Trend alleged that 
Thomas owed it money for overhauling the transmission on Thomas’ automobile.  Following a 
bench trial, the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court awarded a judgment in favor of 
Motor Trend.  Thomas appeals, pro se, asserting that the trial court erred by (1) prohibiting him 
from presenting all of his evidence; (2) prohibiting him from asserting a counterclaim for loss of 
business; and (3) concluding that he was liable for the entire invoice for automotive services 
Thomas v. Motor Trend 
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2007/042 
Opinion of the Court 
Page 2 
 
 
 
presented by the defendant.  Motor Trend did not file an Appellee’s brief.  For the reasons which 
follow, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.  
We have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s judgment pursuant to title 4, section 32(a) 
of the Virgin Islands Code, which vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over “all appeals 
arising from final judgments, final decrees, [and] final orders of the Superior Court.” 
In this appeal, our review of Thomas’s asserted errors is significantly hindered because 
he has not provided the Court with a sufficient record.    The appendix submitted by Thomas 
contains only eight, selected pages of the trial transcript, a copy of the repair estimate, and a copy 
of the final invoice.   We have read the portion of the transcript that Thomas provided, and it 
does not show that the trial court prohibited him from presenting evidence or a counterclaim or 
that the court erred by issuing a judgment for virtually the entire amount due under the invoice.  
In fact, to the extent that we are able to glean anything from the sparse record submitted by 
Thomas, it appears that the price Motor Trend ultimately charged him for the overhaul, 
$2,719.01, was relatively close to the $2,563.85 repair estimate it had earlier provided.   An 
estimate, by definition, is only an approximate calculation.  See The New American Heritage 
Dictionary of the English Language 628 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “estimate” as “[t]o calculate 
approximately (the amount, extent, magnitude, position, or value of something)”).  Although 
Thomas submitted only one page of the transcript from Alfred Cannonier’s testimony, that 
testimony reveals that Motor Trend provided an estimate because it could not precisely 
determine which parts needed to be replaced until the transmission was removed from the 
vehicle and disassembled.   Thus, the fact that Motor Trend determined, after disassembling the 
transmission, that it needed to replace additional parts is not a tenable basis for reversing the trial 
Thomas v. Motor Trend 
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2007/042 
Opinion of the Court 
Page 3 
 
 
 
court’s judgment.  Based on the evidence, the trial court awarded Motor Trend $984.00, slightly 
less than the $1,000.00 balance reflected on the invoice.  Under these circumstances, we cannot 
say that the trial court conducted the trial in such a manner, or issued a judgment, that failed to 
do substantial justice.   See Super Ct. R. 64. 
Even though we consider Thomas’s brief under a less stringent standard due to his pro se 
status, his “self-representation ‘is not a license [excusing compliance] with relevant rules of 
procedural and substantive law.’”  Ballentine v. Roberts, No. 2008-60, 2008 WL 4560742, at *1 
n.1 (D.V.I. Oct. 8, 2008) (quoting Faretta v. California., 422 U.S. 806, 835 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 
45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)).  Thus, he is still bound by the age-old axiom imposing on appellants the 
burden of showing the appellate court, by the record, that the trial court erred.  See Bagnell v. 
Broderick, 38 U.S. 436, 441 (1839) (“The presumption is that the judgment of the Circuit Court 
is proper, and it lies on the plaintiff in error to show the contrary.”); see also Ada County 
Highway Dist. v. Total Success Invs., LLC, 179 P.3d 323, 333 n.4 (Idaho 2008) (“[A]ppellant has 
the burden of showing that the district court committed error . . . [and such e]rror must be 
affirmatively shown on the record.” (citation omitted)); State v. Moncla, 936 P.2d 727, 736 (Kan. 
1997) (“The defendant has the burden of furnishing a record which affirmatively shows that 
prejudicial error occurred in the trial court. In the absence of such a record, an appellate court 
presumes that the action of the trial court was proper.” (citation omitted)); Groves v. Roy G. 
Hildreth and Son, Inc., 664 S.E.2d 531, 536 (W.Va. 2008) (“On an appeal to this Court the 
appellant bears the burden of showing that there was error in the proceeding below resulting in 
the judgment of which he complains, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the 
proceedings and judgment in and of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).   We cannot assume that 
Thomas v. Motor Trend 
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2007/042 
Opinion of the Court 
Page 4 
 
 
 
the trial court erred, but instead presume that the trial court’s judgment is “valid and in 
conformity with the law.”  Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 205 (3d Cir. 1993).  
 
Upon reviewing the sparse record submitted by Thomas in this case, we conclude that he 
has not met his burden of affirmatively showing, on the record, that the trial court erred.  
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.  
 
 
Dated this 7th day of April, 2009. 
 
 
ATTEST: 
VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. 
Clerk of the Court