Hardin v. State, Jackson County

Citation51 S.W.3d 129
Parties(Mo.App. W.D. 2001) Denny R. Hardin, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Jackson County, Kansas City and Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force, Inc., Respondents. WD59183 0
Decision Date07 May 2001
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Daniel L. Chadwick

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: David Lieber, Mary Jane McQueeny, Charlotte Ferns and J. Earlene Farr

Opinion Summary: Denny R. Hardin appeals the circuit court's judgment to dismiss his "Petition for Redress of Grievance." The state and the Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force assert, however, that we should dismiss Hardin's appeal for his failure to comply with rule 84.04.

Division holds: Hardin's points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d). Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review. Hardin also did not comply with Rule 84.04(e). Although Hardin had a section in his brief in the argument section titled "Standard of Review," the section did not set forth the standard of review.

Paul M. Spinden, Chief Judge

Denny R. Hardin appeals the circuit court's judgment to dismiss his "Petition for Redress of Grievance." The state and the Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force assert, however, that we should dismiss Hardin's appeal for his failure to comply with rule 84.04. We agree and dismiss Hardin's appeal.

Hardin appears pro se. We hold pro se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys, and we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules. Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Mo. App. 2000). Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for the dismissal of an appeal. Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. App. 1999).

Rule 84.04(d)(1) instructs that the appellant's brief shall contain points relied on that "(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error." The rule further instructs:

The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error]."

Rule 84.04(d)(1). Moreover, "[a]bstract statements of law, standing alone, do not comply with this rule." Rule 84.04(d)(4).

Hardin's points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d) at all. In his points, he asserts:

I. The Trial Court has Committed Impeachable Error by Evading and Avoiding its Responsibility to Uphold the Constitution of Missouri in a Clear Act of "willful neglect of duty", because the Trial Court has Dismissed the entire case of Constitutional Violations it has failed in its Administrative, Adjudicative and Disciplinary Responsibilities.

II. Appellant Has The Right to Seek Justice From The Courts, The Respondents Have Conspired To Deny Appellant Judicial Determination Of The Legal Status Of The Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force, Incorporated To Continue The "Fraud" Of The Corporation.

III. Respondents Of This Cause Of Action Have Collectively Argued That Appellant Is Not Entitled to Equitable or Declaratory Relief and That They are Immune From Suit and Prosecution By The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

Although Hardin's first point identifies the circuit court's ruling that he is challenging--the dismissal of his petition--the other two points do not identify the circuit court's rulings or actions that he is challenging. None of the points state the legal reasons for his claim of reversible error, and the points do not explain why those legal reasons support his claim of reversible error. Moreover, the points are not set forth in substantially the same form as set out in Rule 84.04(d).

"'Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review." Hall v. Missouri Board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Bittick v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 2003
    ...they cannot "relax [the] standards for non-lawyers." State v. Winrod, 68 S.W.3d 580, 586 (Mo.App. S.D.2002) (citing Hardin v. State, 51 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001)). "This principle is not grounded in a `lack of sympathy but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impa......
  • State v. Julius, ED 100555
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2014
    ...conclusion. “Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review” and are subject to dismissal. Hardin v. State, 51 S.W.3d 129, 130–31 (Mo.App.W.D.2001) (citation and quotations omitted).3 Defendant's initial brief summarizes the law and summarily concludes that Defendan......
  • State v. Julius
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 2014
    ..."Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review" and are subj ect to dismissal. Hardin v. State, 51 S.W.3d 129, 130-31 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (citation and quotations omitted). 3. Defendant's initial brief summarizes the law and summarily concludes that Defendant was ......
  • Capital One Bank v. Hardin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2005
    ...because Hardin has had a prior civil appeal dismissed by this court since his pro se brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, Hardin v. State, 51 S.W.3d 129 (Mo.App. W.D.2001), he is well aware of the requirements for filing a legally suitable Second, in his reply brief, Hardin does not resp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT