Jacqueline Lancaster v. Marc Lancaster , 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 63 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
    WESTERN DISTRICT
    J.L.,                                         )
    )
    Respondent,                   )
    )
    vs.                                           )       WD77454
    )
    MARC LANCASTER,                               )       Opinion filed: January 27, 2015
    )
    Appellant.                    )
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI
    THE HONORABLE MARGARET L. SAUER, JUDGE
    Before Division Two: Joseph M. Ellis, Presiding Judge,
    Victor C. Howard, Judge and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
    Marc Lancaster appeals the trial court’s judgment granting J.L. a full order of protection.
    Because of Lancaster’s failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Rules 84.04 and
    81.12, J.L.’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
    Lancaster appears pro se. Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys.
    Duncan-Anderson v. Duncan, 
    321 S.W.3d 498
    , 499 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). “Although we are
    mindful of the difficulties that a party appearing pro se encounters in complying with the rules of
    procedure, we must require pro se appellants to comply with these rules.” M.H. v. Garcia, 
    385 S.W.3d 489
    , 490 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)(internal quotes and citation omitted). “It is not for lack
    of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial
    economy, and fairness to all parties.” Duncan v. Duncan, 
    320 S.W.3d 725
    , 726 (Mo. App. E.D.
    2010)(internal quotes and citation omitted). Accordingly, pro se appellants must comply with
    Supreme Court rules, including Rule 84.04 governing appellate briefing and Rule 81.12
    concerning the record on appeal. State v. Ricker, 
    400 S.W.3d 11
    , 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013);
    Duncan, 
    321 S.W.3d at 499
    .
    Compliance with the Rule 84.04 briefing requirements is mandatory to ensure that the
    appellate court does not become an advocate by speculating on facts and arguments that have not
    been made. Garcia, 
    385 S.W.3d at 490
    . Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for dismissal of
    an appeal. 
    Id.
    Whether to dismiss an appeal for briefing deficiencies is discretionary. That
    discretion is generally not exercised unless the deficiency impedes disposition on
    the merits. It is always our preference to resolve an appeal on the merits of the
    case rather than to dismiss an appeal for deficiencies in the brief.
    
    Id.
     (internal quotes and citation omitted).
    Lancaster’s brief is deficient in many respects. First, Rule 84.04(c) provides that the
    statement of facts “be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented
    for determination without argument.” Lancaster’s statement of facts is one-sided, incomplete,
    and argumentative.
    Second, Lancaster’s brief violates Rule 84.04(d) concerning points relied on. The rule
    provides that each point identify the trial court ruling or action being challenged, state concisely
    the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, and explain in summary fashion why, in the
    context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Rule 84.04(d). The
    rule also sets out the form the points shall substantially follow. 
    Id.
     “The purpose of the briefing
    requirements regarding points relied on is to give notice to the party opponent of the precise
    matter which must be contended with and answered and to inform the court of the issues
    2
    presented for resolution.” Duncan, 
    321 S.W.3d at 500
    . Lancaster’s brief does not include any
    points relied on.
    Finally, Lancaster’s argument section fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). It does not
    begin with an initial statement or restatement of the point relied on. Rule 84.04(e). It also fails
    to state the applicable standard of review. 
    Id.
    In his argument, Lancaster argues that J.L. “failed to provide any proof of abuse, assault,
    battery, coercion, or harassment and the history between [the parties] reflects the lack of proof.”
    Even if we discern that such argument is a claim of lack of substantial evidence to support the
    judgment, the record on appeal does not contain the transcript of the hearing on the petition for
    order of protection. Without a transcript, it is impossible to review such a claim.
    Rule 81.12(a) provides, “The record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings
    and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant
    or respondent, to the appellate court for decision.” It is the appellant’s duty to order the
    transcript and compile the record on appeal.          Rule 81.12(c).   Furthermore, “[a]ppellant is
    responsible for depositing all exhibits that are necessary for the determination of any point relied
    on.” Rule 81.12(e). “Where the record does not include all of the documents necessary for this
    court to determine the issue presented, our review is impossible and the claim of error must be
    dismissed.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 
    368 S.W.3d 363
    , 370 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)(internal quotes and
    citation omitted).
    The deficiencies in the brief and record on appeal prevent meaningful appellate review.
    The appeal is dismissed.
    __________________________________________
    VICTOR C. HOWARD, JUDGE
    All concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WD77454

Citation Numbers: 453 S.W.3d 348, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 63

Judges: Ellis, Howard, Pfeiffer

Filed Date: 1/27/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024