Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division
from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri The Honorable
Patricia Joyce, Judge
Before: Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer,
and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges
N. Chapman, Presiding Judge
Callahan (Callahan) appeals the judgment of the Cole County
Circuit Court, denying his petition for a writ of
mandamus. In his writ petition, Callahan sought
credit for time he spent confined in the Morgan County Jail
while simultaneously on probation. Due to the substantial
deficiencies in Callahan's brief and his failure to file
a record sufficient for the Court to determine his claim of
error on the merits, we dismiss the appeal.
sparse record we are provided does indicate that, in the
Circuit Court of Boone County, Callahan pled guilty in 2012
to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to a 12-year term of
imprisonment. State v. Shane Alan Callahan, Boone
County Circuit Court Case No. 11BA-CR00459-01. After
completing a long-term treatment program, he was placed on
probation. In May 2015, he was arrested and charged by
federal authorities with conspiracy to distribute more than
500 grams of methamphetamine and violating the terms of his
probation. Thereafter, he was held in the Morgan County Jail
until June 2016, when his Boone County probation on the 2012
robbery conviction was revoked.
instant action, Callahan's petition for writ of mandamus
sought credit for the time he spent in custody prior to the
revocation of his Boone County probation. The Cole County
circuit court denied his request, finding that (1) he was on
probation during the time for which he sought credit, and (2)
the Boone County sentencing court did not indicate its
intention to award him probation-time credit under §
559.100.2 when it revoked his probation.
is a pro se appellant. "While this Court is
mindful of the problems facing pro se appellants, we cannot
relax the standards for non-attorneys. 'This principal
(sic) is not grounded in a lack of sympathy but rather it is
necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality,
judicial economy and fairness to all parties.'"
Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co., 423 S.W.3d 834,
836 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal citation omitted) (quoting
Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 299 S.W.3d 311, 313
(Mo. App. S.D. 2009)). "Compliance with Rule 84.04
briefing 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."
Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456,
458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). Furthermore, "[i]n the absence
of compliance with Rule 81.12 we are unable to review the
points on appeal." Snelling v. Hous. Auth. of St.
Louis Cty., 956 S.W.2d 323, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).
brief is deficient in several respects. Rule 84.04(c)
provides that "[a]ll statements of facts shall have
specific page references to the relevant portion of the
record on appeal[.]" Callahan has not provided record
citations for some of his factual assertions; other
assertions find no support in the citations he has provided;
and all of his page references appear to be directed to the
appendix to his brief, even though "[t]he appendix is
not part of the legal file or otherwise part of the record on
appeal." Bison Park Dev., LLC v. N. Am. Sav. Bank,
F.S.B., 399 S.W.3d 877, 882 n.7 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
The requirement that an appellant provide record citations
for his factual statements "is mandatory and essential
for the effective functioning of appellate courts, which
cannot spend time searching the record to determine if
factual assertions are supported by the record. This would
effectively require the court to act as an advocate for the
non-complying party," which we may not do. Brown v.
Shannahan, 141 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004).
sole point on appeal provides as follows:
The Boone County Circuit Court erred when it denied
Appellant's writ for extraordinary relief, where the
court found that Appellant was on probation for the period at
issue, and as the order of revocation was ambiguous beyond
directing that Appellant recieve [sic] all credit for time
point is not readily understandable and does not
"[s]tate concisely the legal reasons for
[Callahan's] claim of reversible error" or
"[e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the
case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible
error." Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B)-(C). The point is not set
forth substantially in the form mandated by our Missouri
Court Rules. Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C).
"Deficient points relied on force the appellate court to
search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself
to determine and clarify the appellant's assertions,
thereby wasting judicial resources, and, worse yet, creating
the danger that the appellate court will interpret the
appellant's contention differently than the appellant
intended or his opponent understood."
Wallace v. Frazier, 546 S.W.3d 624, 627-28 (Mo. App.
W.D. 2018) (quoting Treaster v. Betts, 297 S.W.3d
94, 95 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)).
argument section begins with a factual recitation, which is
bereft of any citation to the record on appeal. See
Rule 84.04(e). He has failed to provide the applicable
standard of review for his claim of error. Id. In
further violation of Rule ...