In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION ONE
A.C.C., ) No. ED106357
)
Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of St. Louis County
vs. ) 17SL-PN04237
)
S.B., ) Honorable John N. Borbonus
)
Appellant. ) Filed: February 13, 2019
S.B. (“Appellant”), acting pro se, appeals the judgment granting A.C.C. a full order of
protection against Appellant. Because Appellant’s brief so substantially fails to comply with the
mandatory briefing requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 (2018) 1 that it preserves
nothing for our review, we dismiss the appeal.
I. DISCUSSION
Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to the
mandatory appellate briefing requirements set forth in Rule 84.04. Hamilton v. Archer, 545
S.W.3d 377, 379, 379 n.1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (similarly finding with respect to Missouri
Supreme Court Rule 84.04 (2016)); see generally Rule 84.04. “Judicial impartiality, judicial
economy, and fairness to all parties necessitates that we do not grant pro se litigants preferential
treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules.” Hamilton, 545 S.W.3d at
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018).
379 (emphasis and quotations omitted). Although our Court prefers to dispose of a case on the
merits whenever possible, we must dismiss the appeal if the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief
are such that no claims are preserved for appellate review. Id.
Here, Appellant’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 in multiple respects. Rule
84.04(d)(1) requires each point relied on to, (A) identify the ruling or action of the trial court that
is being challenged by the appellant; (B) provide a concise statement of the legal reasons for the
appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of
the case, the legal reasons provided support such a claim of error. Rule 84.04(d)(1). In this case,
Appellant’s first point relied on merely requests our Court to vacate the trial court’s judgment
and states, “[t]he [r]ules of [e]vidence, [a]uthenticity and [i]dentifying [e]vidence pertaining to
the emails was [sic] not made evident.” This point relied on wholly fails to comply with Rule
84.04(d)(1)(A-C) by failing to identify the ruling or action of the trial court that is being
challenged by Appellant, by failing to set forth a coherent explanation of the legal reasons for her
claim, and by failing to explain why, in the context of the case, such legal reasons support her
claim. See Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A-C); see also Davis v. Long, 391 S.W.3d 532, 532 n.1, 533 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2013) (finding a brief failed to comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04(d)
(2012) under similar circumstances). In addition, although Appellant’s second, third, and
fourth/final points relied on arguably identify the rulings or actions of the trial court that are
being challenged by the Appellant, they fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B-C) by failing to
set forth a coherent explanation of the legal reasons for her claims, and by failing to explain why,
in the context of the case, such legal reasons support her claims. See Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B-C); see
also Davis, 391 S.W.3d at 533. Therefore, Appellant’s four points relied on all fail to comply
with Rule 84.04(d)(1).
2
Appellant’s brief also fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). Rule 84.04(e) requires the
argument portion of an appellant’s brief to, inter alia: substantially follow the order set out in
the points relied on; be limited to the errors included in the points relied on; include a concise
statement describing whether the alleged error was preserved; set forth the applicable standard of
review for each claim of error; and advise our Court how the facts of the case and principles of
law interact. Rule 84.04(e); see Davis, 391 S.W.3d at 533. The argument portion of Appellant’s
brief does not follow the order set out in the points relied on, is interspersed with additional
arguments that do not correspond with Appellant’s points relied on, fails to describe whether the
alleged errors were preserved, does not identify the applicable standard of review for any of her
claims, and contains authority that is erroneously cited in both substance and form. Accordingly,
it fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). See Rule 84.04(e); see also Davis, 391 S.W.3d at 533.
In sum, Appellant’s brief so substantially fails to comply with the mandatory briefing
requirements of Rule 84.04 that it preserves nothing for our review. See Hamilton, 545 S.W.3d
at 379-81 and Davis, 391 S.W.3d at 532-33 (similarly holding). Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal
must be dismissed. See id.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Judge
Roy L. Richater, P.J., and
Angela T. Quigless, J., concur.
3