Johnson v. Mo. Dept. of Corr., WD 80193
Citation | 534 S.W.3d 869 |
Decision Date | 27 June 2017 |
Docket Number | WD 80193 |
Parties | Terrance JOHNSON, Appellant, v. MO. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Terrance Johnson, Appellant Pro-se.
Patrick J. Logan, for Respondent.
Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge
Terrance Johnson appeals the Cole County Circuit Court's order granting judgment on the pleadings with respect to his Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Habeas Relief. Johnson's brief and four points are significantly deficient. His appeal is dismissed.
Johnson appeals pro se. His initial brief was struck by this court, and he was given the opportunity to file an amended brief. He did so.
Johnson's amended brief contains multiple violations of Rule 84.04 and preserves nothing for review. See Nichols v. Div. of Employment Sec. , 399 S.W.3d 901, 902 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). "Rule 84.04 sets forth various requirements for appellate briefs and compliance with these 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." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal." Id. at 903. "An appellant who proceeds pro se is subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Johnson's four points on appeal read:
Johnson's points do not meet the requirements of Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A), Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B), or 84.04(d)(1)(C). None of the points state why the circuit court's ruling was erroneous. This court cannot tell what Johnson's basis is for claiming the circuit court committed reversible error. Johnson's first point doesn't state how his argument is supported by the law. His second point does not identify the ruling of the circuit court he is challenging.
The three components of a point relied on are:
DeCota Elec. & Indus. Supply, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co. , 886 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) (citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 684–85 (Mo. banc 1978) ). "The why requirement contemplates a statement which ordinarily will closely approximate what the appellant believes should have been the trial court's conclusion of law on the point being addressed." Id. "After stating why the ruling was erroneous, the point must then explain wherein the testimony or evidence gives rise to the ruling for which the appellant contends." Id. "It is not enough for the point ... via conclusions of claimed error to simply say the trial court was wrong without alluding to some evidence or testimony which gives support to such conclusions." Id.
"Under Rule 84.04, it is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justification and circumstances." Nichols , 399 S.W.3d at 903 (internal quotation omitted). "Speculation on an appellant's arguments is not permitted by the appellate courts because such speculation would cast the court in the role of an advocate for the appellant." Id. (internal quotation omitted). After carefully reviewing Johnson's points relied on and brief, this court is only capable of speculating on what his arguments and the legal basis for his claims are.
Moreover, Johnson's points relied on fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 84.04(d)(5) that "[i]mmediately following each ‘Point Relied On,’ the appellant ... shall include a list of cases, not to exceed four, and the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions or other authority upon which that party principally relies." Johnson lists 16 cases after his first point, 21 cases after his second point, and 13 cases after his third point.
Furthermore, Johnson's argument is defective. Johnson's argument section fails to substantially follow the order of the point relied on and to restate it at the beginning of the section as required by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. City of Kan. City
...and issues raised in the argument under a point that are not fairly encompassed by that point.’ " Johnson v. Mo. Dep't of Corrections , 534 S.W.3d 869, 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Nichols v. Div. of Emp't Sec. , 399 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ).7 Tivol narrowed Farrow insofa......
-
Douglass v. Douglass
...and issues raised in the argument under a point that are not fairly encompassed by that point.’ " Johnson v. Mo. Dep't of Corrections , 534 S.W.3d 869, 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Nichols v. Div. of Emp't Sec. , 399 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ).10 Matlock v. Matlock , 815 S.......
-
New LLC v. Bauer
...encompassed by that point.’ " Douglass v. Douglass , 570 S.W.3d 130, 137 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Johnson v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 534 S.W.3d 869, 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) ).12 In addition, we note that Bauer did not challenge on appeal the trial court's conclusion that New LLC was ......
-
Paes v. Bear Commc'ns, LLC
...arguments and issues raised in the argument under a point that are not fairly encompassed by that point.’ " Johnson v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 534 S.W.3d 869, 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Nichols v. Div. of Emp't Sec. , 399 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ). In any event, even were t......