State v. Brown, 35859
| Decision Date | 30 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 35859,35859 |
| Citation | 535 S.W.2d 606 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Melvin BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Bell, Wilson, Fullwood & Harris, James A. Bell, Allen I Harris, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Christopher R. Brewster, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Mark a. Brown, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was convicted, in a court tried case, of possession of cocaine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance in violation of § 195.017 RSMo Supp.1973, and of violation of the Habitual Criminal Act, § 556.280 RSMo 1969. For the reasons set out herein the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
If we are to expedite the ever increasing number of cases presented for our consideration we must have the cooperation of counsel. The simple rules of the Supreme Court regarding appellate practice, and in particular 84.04, must be followed. This rule is equally applicable to civil and to criminal cases. Rule 28.18. State v. Shumate, 516 S.W.2d 297 (Mo.App.1974).
Rule 84.04[c] requires a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented. Such statement may be followed by a resume of the testimony of witnesses whose testimony is relevant to the issues. The brief before us contains only a resume of that testimony of all of the witnesses which is most favorable to the defendant, which required respondent to file an extensive supplement. This does not comply with the rule. Graff v. Montileone, 523 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App.1975).
The brief contains a page which has the heading 'Points and Authorities Relied Upon.' It consists of an alphabetical list of cases, textbooks, statutes and ordinances without reference to any issue in the case.
On the following unnumbered page, 1 under the heading 'Questions Presented' we find two numbered paragraphs, the first reads as follows:
Rule 84.04(d) provides:
'(d) The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities thereunder. If more than three authorities are cited in support of a point made, the three authorities principally relied on shall be cited first. All authorities discussed in the argument shall be cited under the 'Points Relied On.' Long lists of citations shall not be included.
Setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court is not a compliance with this rule.'
The 'Question Presented' does not tell us briefly and concisely what action or ruling of the court is sought to be reviewed. It should not be too difficult for counsel in writing the Points Relied On to answer a simple question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hutchens
...statement by affirming convictions where the substance involved was cocaine. State v. Long, 550 S.W.2d 854 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Hyde, 532 S.W.2d 212 (Mo.App. 1975); State v. Harms, 507 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. App.1974). The language of § 195.017, subs......
-
State v. Macke
...This rule applies to criminal cases. Rule 28.18. See, e. g., State v. McClain, 541 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.App.1976). Assuming that § 542.296(6) does require the state to carry the risk of nonpersuasion, 1 we are not obliged to search the transcript......
-
State v. Morrow
...Point V. Points I through IV preserve nothing for appellate review. State v. Ball, 527 S.W.2d 414, 415(1) (Mo.App.1975); State v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.App.1976). For his Point V, defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing witnesses present at the preliminary hearing to testif......
-
State v. Tsiboukas, 10998
...rule applies to criminal cases per the provisions of Rule 28.18 (State v. McClain, 541 S.W.2d 351, 354(2) (Mo.App.1976); State v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 606(1) (Mo.App.1976); State v. Yearwood, 510 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Mo.App.1974)) and a point which cannot be comprehended without reference to the tra......