Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI THE HONORABLE
DANIEL R. GREEN, JUDGE
Before: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Victor C.
Howard, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge
C. HOWARD, JUDGE
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.
appeals pro se. His initial brief was struck by this court,
and he was given the opportunity to file an amended brief. He
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
four points on appeal read:
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN DENYING APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT §558.019.3 AND
§558.016 RSMO, AND RESPONDENT'S PAROLE GUIDELINES
WHEN READ TOGETHER POSES AN AMBIGUITY VIOLATING EX POST
FACTOR AND BILL OF ATTAINDER LAW UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND
MISSOURI'S CONSTITUTION, TO INVOKE THE RULES OF LENITY,
TO CONSTRUE IT LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT AND STRICTLY
AGAINST THE STATE.
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WERE
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME RESPONDENT VIOLATED IT, i.e.,
APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY AS OTHER
PRISONERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED
III. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN CONSTRUING
APPELLANT'S CLAIM UNDER ISSUE #C OF HIS ORIGINAL PETITION
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS CHALLENGE TO HIS CRIMINAL
CONVICTION WHEN, HE REQUESTED THE HEARING COURT TO DECLARE
THAT RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO GAUGE APPELLANT'S
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND DISREGARD THE JUDICIALLY
IMAGINED CONDUCT ASCRIBED BY THE TRIAL COURT UNDER THE
RESIDUAL CLAUSE FOR ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE §569.020 AND
ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE §565.050 TO MAKE HIM ELIGIBLE TO
SERVE 85% OF HIS SENTENCE.
IV. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CAUSE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE HEARING COURT DID NOT MAKE AN
ADEQUATE AND PROPER DECLARATION OF WHETHER OR NOT APPELLANT,
(a) HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS APPLICATION IN DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT; (b) WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANT HAS
BEEN VIOLATED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S PRACTICE
TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT BROADER THAN THE JUDGMENT, AND; (c)
WHAT REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT TO REMEDY THE WRONGS
COMPLAINED OF SEE: MISSOURI CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION
14 "OPEN COURT'S, REMEDY FOR EVERY INJURY, JUSTICE
WITHOUT SALE, DENIAL OR DELAY."
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.
three components of a point relied on are:
(1) A concise statement of the challenged action or
ruling of ...