State v. Westmoreland

• Decision Date: 26 June 2001
• Parties: (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bryan L. Westmoreland, Appellant. ED77984 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

48 S.W.3d 672 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001)

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bryan L. Westmoreland, Appellant.

ED77984

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

06/26/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Mark Thomas Stoll

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: Michael Griffith

Opinion Summary: Bryan L. Westmoreland appeals his conviction for third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer under section 565.083, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to 165 days in county jail with execution of the sentence suspended, and was placed on probation for 2 years with a condition that he serve 15 days in county jail.

Division Three holds: Westmoreland's appeal is dismissed because his brief failed to comply with Rule 30.06(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Crahan and Draper III, JJ., concur.

Gary M. Gaertner, Sr., Presiding Judge

Appellant, Bryan L. Westmoreland ("appellant"), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County convicting him of Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer in the third degree, Section 565.083, RSMo 1994. Appellant was sentenced to 165 days in county jail with execution of the sentence suspended, and was placed on probation for 2 years with a condition that appellant serve 15 days in county jail. We dismiss.¹

On June 1, 1999, appellant was charged with assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, as a result of an incident that happened on May 3, 1999. After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty as charged. Appellant was sentenced as a prior offender by the trial court on May 3, 2000. On March 15, 2001, appellant filed a brief with this Court. Appellant's brief did not contain table of contents. Appellant's statement of facts was as follows:

1. Manifest Injustice or Miscarriage of Justice

Right to Counsel denied: page 43, transcript page 164, (8-22), p154-155,

(1-16) No arraignment of defendant or waiver thereof.(?)

Violation of constitutional rights: p 2-3, (13-15)

Arousing sympathy of jury: p 143 (2-17)

Trial court errors: (Improper Legal file).

Denied stay of sentence: legal Record p 22

Legal record without;

i. Minute sheets

ii. Defendant's arraignment

iii. Notice of appeal

Appellant's points relied on merely state the law.

Rule 30.06(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states: "[t]he brief for appellant shall contain the material prescribed by Rule 84.04(a)." Rule 84.04(a)(1) states that appellant's brief shall contain a "detailed table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and other authorities cited, with reference to the pages of the brief where they are cited. Additionally Rule 84.04(a)(2-6) states that appellant's brief shall contain a concise statement of the grounds on which jurisdiction of the reviewing court is invoked; a statement of facts; the points relied on; an argument, which shall substantially follow the order of the points relied on; and a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

Furthermore, Rule 84.04(c) states that "the statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." The points relied on shall: 1) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; 2) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and 3) 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). Abstract statements of law, standing alone as points relied on, do not comply with this rule. Rule 84.04(d)(4). "Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with Supreme Court rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs." Woodard v. SmithKline Beecham/Quest, 29 S.W.3d 843, 844 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000). As a general proposition, appellate courts are naturally reluctant to decline review in a criminal case for briefing deficiencies. State v. Cotton, 32 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Mo.App.W.D. 2000). However, where "the briefing deficiencies are so substantial that the...