453 S.W.3d 348
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Lancaster appeals a circuit court order granting J.L. a full order of protection.
- Lancaster, appearing pro se, failed to comply with Rules 84.04 and 81.12 on briefing and record.
- The appellate briefing was deficient in facts, points relied on, and argument structure.
- There is no transcript of the hearing on the petition for order of protection in the record.
- Rule 81.12 requires the appellant to order and include the transcript and all necessary exhibits.
- Because the record on appeal is incomplete, meaningful review is impossible and the appeal is dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for briefing/record deficiencies permissible? | Lancaster asserts insufficient evidence review without transcript. | Record deficiencies prevent review and justify dismissal. | Yes; appeal dismissed due to briefing and record deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (pro se duties and fairness require compliance with rules)
- Duncan-Anderson v. Duncan, 321 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (pro se appellants must comply with Supreme Court rules)
- M.H. v. Garcia, 385 S.W.3d 489 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (summary of briefing requirements for pro se appellants)
- State v. Ricker, 400 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (emphasizes Rule 84.04/81.12 compliance and record duties)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 368 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (inadequate record requires dismissal)