Lattimer v. Clark, s. WD 75253

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: VICTOR C. HOWARD
• Citation: 412 S.W.3d 420
• Parties: ShaVon LATTIMER, Appellant, v. Evelyn L. CLARK, D.D.S., Respondent, Division of Employment Security, for respondent.
• Docket Number: WD 75254.,Nos. WD 75253,s. WD 75253
• Decision Date: 29 October 2013

412 S.W.3d 420

ShaVon LATTIMER, Appellant,
v.
Evelyn L. CLARK, D.D.S., Respondent, Division of Employment Security, for respondent.

Nos. WD 75253, WD 75254.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.

Sept. 24, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to the Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29, 2013.

[412 S.W.3d 421]

ShaVon Lattimer, appellant pro-se.

Bart A. Matanic, Jefferson City, for respondent Division of Employment Security.

Before Division I: VICTOR C. HOWARD, Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judge.

[412 S.W.3d 422]

VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.

ShaVon Lattimer appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming that Ms. Lattimer received an overpayment of unemployment benefits because she was disqualified from benefits for having voluntarily quit without good cause attributable to her work and because her appeal of the disqualification was untimely. Because of significant deficiencies in Ms. Lattimer's appellate brief, we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the Commission's determination.

Ms. Lattimer appeals pro se. Her initial brief was struck for multiple, specific violations of the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. Thereafter, Ms. Lattimer filed an amended brief, and said brief continues to contain multiple violations of Rule 84.04 and preserves nothing for review. “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.’ ” Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704, 706 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (quoting Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo.App.W.D.2007)). “ ‘Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.E.D.1999)). 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.’ ” Moreland v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 273 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (quoting Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603, 603 (Mo.App.W.D.2008)).

First, Ms. Lattimer's jurisdictional statement is deficient. Rule 84.04(b) provides:

The jurisdictional statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of Article V, section 3, of the Constitution whereon jurisdiction is sought to be predicated.

Ms. Lattimer's jurisdictional statement provides the procedural history of her case and concludes by stating that, “ShaVon Lattimer is submitting a brief...