Callahan v. Precythe

• Decision Date: 18 June 2019
• Docket Number: WD 81964
• Citation: 577 S.W.3d 159
• Parties: Shane CALLAHAN, Appellant, v. Anne PRECYTHE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

577 S.W.3d 159

Shane CALLAHAN, Appellant,
v.
Anne PRECYTHE, Respondent.

WD 81964

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 18, 2019

Shane Callahan, Terre Haute, IN, Appellant Acting Pro Se.

Olivea Myers, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges

Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge

577 S.W.3d 161

Shane Callahan (Callahan) appeals the judgment of the Cole County Circuit Court, denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.¹ In his writ petition, Callahan sought credit for time he spent confined in the Morgan County Jail while simultaneously on probation. Due to the substantial deficiencies in Callahan’s brief and his failure to file a record sufficient for the Court to determine his claim of error on the merits, we dismiss the appeal.

The sparse record we are provided does indicate that, in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Callahan pled guilty in 2012 to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to a 12-year term of imprisonment. State v. Shane Alan Callahan , Boone County Circuit Court Case No. 11BA-CR00459-01. After completing a long-term treatment program, he was placed on probation. In May 2015, he was arrested and charged by federal authorities with conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine and violating the terms of his probation. Thereafter, he was held in the Morgan County Jail until June 2016, when his Boone County probation on the 2012 robbery conviction was revoked.²

In the instant action, Callahan’s petition for writ of mandamus sought credit for the time he spent in custody prior to the revocation of his Boone County probation. The Cole County circuit court denied his request, finding that (1) he was on probation during the time for which he sought credit, and (2) the Boone County sentencing court did not indicate its intention to award him probation-time credit under § 559.100.2 when it revoked his probation.³

Callahan is a pro se appellant. "While this Court is mindful of the problems facing pro se appellants, we cannot relax the standards for non-attorneys. ‘This principal (sic) is not grounded in a lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties.’ " Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, FSB , 299 S.W.3d 311, 313 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) ). "Compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made." Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). Furthermore, "[i]n the absence of compliance with Rule 81.12 we are unable to review the points on appeal." Snelling v. Hous. Auth. of St. Louis Cty. , 956 S.W.2d 323, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).

Callahan’s brief is deficient in several respects. Rule 84.04(c) provides

577 S.W.3d 162

that "[a]ll statements of facts shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal[.]" Callahan has not provided record citations for some of his factual assertions; other assertions find no support in the citations he has provided; and all of his page references appear to be directed to the appendix to his brief, even though "[t]he appendix is not part of the legal file...