St. Louis Cnty. v. Shanklin
| Decision Date | 17 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108623,ED 108623 |
| Citation | 616 S.W.3d 423 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Respondent, v. Janet SHANKLIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Janet Shanklin (Acting Pro Se), 4360 Keevenshore Drive, Florissant, MO. 63034, for appellant.
Monique D. McNutt, 41 South Clayton Ave, Clayton, MO. 63105, for respondent.
The defendant, Janet Shanklin, appeals pro se the judgment and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Municipal Division, following her conviction by a jury of three counts of violation of orders of protection and one count of harassment. The trial court sentenced Shanklin to 14 days of confinement each on counts II and III, to be served consecutively in the county jail. On counts IV and V, the court sentenced Shanklin to 14 days of confinement with execution suspended and two years of probation for each. Shanklin challenges her conviction on numerous bases. Her failure to comply with the appellate briefing standards of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 is so substantial, however, that her brief preserves nothing for our review.1 Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
The charges against Shanklin arose from incidents involving her next-door neighbor that occurred from July 15, 2013 through December 20, 2016. The neighbor obtained multiple orders of protection against Shanklin, and police were called over 300 times to investigate complaints against her.
St. Louis County charged Shanklin with 28 violations of county ordinances. The trial court joined five charges and confined the trial to the following: (1) count I, violation of orders of protection, which involved the display of a firearm on July 15, 2013; (2) count II, harassment, occurring on April 10, 2016; (3) count III, violation of orders of protection on November 11, 2016, which involved Shanklin "stalking" the neighbor, as he described it, and talking and singing at him; (4) count IV, violation of orders of protection, which involved the presence of floodlights on Shanklin's property shining into her neighbor's house on November 28, 2016; and (5) count V, violation of orders of protection, which involved the presence of floodlights on Shanklin's property shining into her neighbor's house on December 20, 2016. A series of attorneys, both paid and appointed, represented Shanklin, including the appointed counsel who represented her at trial.
Shanklin testified on her own behalf. She acknowledged that she knew of each order of protection against her, and that she had floodlights on her property in violation of the orders. The jury acquitted Shanklin on count I, which involved the display of a firearm, and convicted her on the other four charges, namely three counts of violation of protective orders and one count of harassment.
The trial court sentenced Shanklin to 14 days of confinement in the county jail on count II and on count III, to be served consecutively, and to 14 days of confinement in the county jail with execution suspended and two years of probation on count IV and on count V. Shanklin appeals.
Shanklin presents twelve points on appeal. Her failure to comply with the appellate briefing standards of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 is so substantial, however, that her brief preserves nothing for our review.
For appeals of criminal cases, Rule 30.06(a) provides that "[t]he form and contents of the briefs shall contain the material prescribed by Rule 84.04 and Rule 84.06." Rule 84.04 sets forth the requirements for all briefs filed in this Court. State v. Bell , 266 S.W.3d 287, 288 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). When, as here, an appellant appears pro se in an appeal, she is still generally held to the same standard as a licensed attorney, and so she must substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04. City of St. Louis v. Hill , 488 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and arguments that have not been asserted. Campbell v. Woodland Lakes Trusteeship, Inc. , 591 S.W.3d 511, 512 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). We prefer to decide cases on the merits when possible, and we will do so as long as we can ascertain the gist of an appellant's arguments, notwithstanding minor shortcomings in briefing. Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). "However, if the brief is so deficient that we cannot competently rule on the merits without first reconstructing the facts and supplementing the appellant's legal arguments, then nothing is preserved for review and we must dismiss the appeal." Id.
Rule 84.04(a) states that an appellant's brief shall contain:
Rule 84.04(b) through (i) further details what each of these requirements should include. Bell , 266 S.W.3d at 289.
Shanklin's brief violates Rule 84.04 in multiple respects, leaving nothing for appellate review. In re Estate of Hanks , 589 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). Although we are mindful of the challenges that pro se litigants face, judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties dictate that we do not grant pro se appellants preferential treatment regarding compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. Midtown Home Improvements, Inc. v. Taylor , 578 S.W.3d 793, 796 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). We cannot reach the merits of the appeal without becoming Shanklin's advocate by reconstructing the facts of the case, speculating about the possible claims of error, and crafting a legal argument on her behalf. Campbell , 591 S.W.3d at 512.
First, under Rule 84.04(b), "[t]he 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 upon which jurisdiction is sought to be predicated." Shanklin's jurisdictional statement fails to state the legal basis for this Court's jurisdiction.
Second, under Rule 84.04(c), an appellant's brief must contain "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Shanklin's statement of facts fails to detail the basic factual background concerning the underlying offenses necessary to resolve her claims on appeal. Instead, she discusses, in no particular order, the trial court's joinder of the five offenses; the plea deals she rejected; trial counsel's efforts to withdraw his representation; her efforts to achieve her neighbor's arrest in 2010; and the impropriety of the orders of protection that her neighbor obtained against her, purportedly under the federal Violence Against Women Act. Ultimately, Shanklin fails to provide "an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (quoting Kuenz v. Walker , 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ).
Third, Shanklin sets forth twelve points relied on, all of which fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1). Each point must: "(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." Rule 84.04(d)(1). Points relied on should 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 ]." Id. (emphasis in original). This rule is not a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality on the part of appellate courts. Hanks , 589 S.W.3d at 606. Rather, the rule serves to notify the opposing party of the precise matters challenged, and to inform our Court of the issues presented for review. Hamilton , 545 S.W.3d at 380.
Here, Shanklin simply asserts that the trial court erred in various ways, such as by depriving her of effective assistance of counsel, finding her guilty, imposing probation, granting St. Louis County's motion for joinder for the five charges tried, and denying her due process. Shanklin's points relied on fail to concisely state the legal reasons for her claim of reversible error, and to explain why those legal reasons, in the context of the case, support her claim. Rule 84.04(d)(1) ; Hamilton , 545 S.W.3d at 380. Given that Rule 84.04(d)(1) provides a template, appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied on. Scott v. King , 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Further, Shanklin often asserts multiple errors within a single point. Multifarious points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserve nothing for our review. Campbell , 591 S.W.3d at 513.
Next and most importantly, Shanklin's argument section does not comply with Rule 84.04(e). Rule 84.04(e) requires an appellant to restate the point relied on at the beginning of the argument section for that point. Shanklin omits this requirement and introduces her argument section for each point—other than point one, which is not briefed at all—with a heading such as "Point 4 – Count II Conviction & Reversible Error" or "Point 10 – Wrongful Conviction." Moreover, to properly brief a case, an appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Higgs
...only the record made before the trial court, and we cannot consider evidence extraneous to the record." St. Louis Cty. v. Shanklin , 616 S.W.3d 423, 429 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020).8 It may be arguable that Higgs was subject to detention a moment earlier, when Officer Popielarz asked Higgs where h......