prior conviction used to support the enhancement of his sentence. The State is correct that it need not file a return until a probable-cause determination was made. See Hodge, 2015 Ark. 207, at 5-6, 461 S.W.3d at 707; see also Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. However, the State’s assertion, and the circuit court’s finding, that Dar-rough made only a bare assertion that failed to establish probable cause is not accurate. Darrotigh made more than a bare assertion in his pleading—he attached the prior California conviction, alleging it was his first and only prior conviction; he nevertheless failed to obtain or attach the record from any part*'of his sentencing hearing, which may have aided him in establishing probable cause. See Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 38, 834 S.W.2d 642 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Even though | ¡¡Darrough presented more than
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden is on the appellant to bring forth a record that demonstrates error holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal