record establishes that the trial court actually considered appellant’s habitual offender conduct as a ground for revocation only at this May 21, 2010 hearing. The trial court appropriately relied on this conviction as a basis for revoking appellant’s suspended sentence at that hearing under Canty because, while appellant’s misconduct was committed “before [appellant’s] most recent revocation hearing,” that misconduct was “not previously found to be ‘no cause’ for revocation.” Canty, 57 Va.App. at 173, 177, 699 S.E.2d at 527, 529 (emphasis in original). It is appellant’s burden to provide this Court with a record from which it can decide the issues in the case. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 262 Va. 661, 669, 553 S.E.2d 760, 764 (2001) (citing Justis, 202 Va. at 632, 119 S.E.2d at 257 (<HOLDING>)). The record on appeal before this Court
holding rule pertaining to time for taking an appeal to supreme court from an order judgment or decree of the lower court is mandatory and jurisdictional holding on appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error recognizing that an appeal has never been an evidentiary proceeding so appellate court will not consider evidence not presented to the lower tribunal because function of appellate court is to determine whether lower tribunal committed error based upon the issues and evidence before it holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer