1



# In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

DIVIS I ON ONE
CHARLES CARMEN , ) No. ED108505 ) Appellant , ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City St. Louis

vs. ) Cause No. 1822

- CC11254 ) COL. ERIC T. OLSEN, et al. , ) Honorable Michael F. Stelzer ) Responden t s

. ) Filed: October 20, 2020

OPINION

Charl es Carmen (“ Carmen ”) appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his petition

for removal from the sex offender registry

. In his sole point on appeal, Carmen argues the trial

court erred in concluding that, pursuant to § 589.40 1 , it did not have the authority to remove

Carmen from the sex offender registry because the “ interpretation relied on is in violation of the
open access to courts provision of the Missouri Constitution, violates the rules of [lenity] , and is

inconsistent with the cannons [ sic] of statutory interpretation. ” 1

Carmen’s failure to comply with the appellate briefing standards of Missouri Supreme

Court Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for our review; therefore , we dismiss this appeal. 2

1 All references are to Mo. Rev. Stat. Cum. Supp. 2019. 2 All references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2020).2 I. Discussion

R ule 84.04 sets forth the requirements for appellate briefing

. Bruce v. City of
Farmington , 551 S.W.3d 65, 66 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018)

. C ompliance 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.” Pearson v. Keystone Temp. Assignment Group, Inc. , 588
S.W.3d 546, 550 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)

. Our C ourt prefer s to decide cases on the merits when
possible and, despite an appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 84.04, we may exercise our

discretion to review an appeal ex gratia when the failure does not substantially prevent
meaningful review

. McGuire v. Edwards , 571 S.W.3d 661, 667

– 68 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)

.

“ H owever, 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.” Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563
S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018)

. Carmen’s appellate brief violates Rule 84.04 in multiple respects, and we cannot reach
the merits of this appeal without becoming C armen’s advocate by searching the record for the

relevant facts of the case and crafting a legal argument on his behalf

. See Porter v. Santander

Consumer USA, Inc. , 590 S.W.3d 356, 35 7

– 5 8 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)

. First, 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.” Carmen ’s

statement of facts fails to detail the basic factual background necessary to resolve his claim on
appeal ; instead, h e only provides six numbered paragraphs consist ing of a short sentence , and his

statement of facts is supported by reference to the trial court’s judgment rather than to “specific
page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or3

exhibits [ , ] ” as required by Rule 84.04(c)

. Ultimately , Carmen fail s 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)).
Second, Carmen fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1), which provid es that each P oint

R elied O n 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; an d (C) Explain in

summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of

reversible error. ” This rule is not a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality , rather it

serves to notify the opposing party of the precise matters under contention and inform o ur C ourt of the issues presented for review. Scott v. King , 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ;

McGuire , 571 S.W.3d at 667. Here , Carmen simply asserts the trial court erred in its
interpretation of § 589.401 and lists di fferent authorities and canons of statutory interpretation

that the trial court’s conclusion supposedly violate s

. Whi le he identifies the ruling challenged,

Carmen’s Point Relied On fails to concisely state the legal reasons for his claim of reversible

error and e xplain why those legal reasons s upport his claim of reversible error. See Rule
84.04(d) (1) ; see also McGuire
, 571 S.W.3d at 667

. Further, Rule 84.04(d)(5) provides that “[ i] mmediately following each ‘ Point Relied On, ’
the appellant

... shall include a list of cases, not to exceed four, and the constitutional, statutory,
and regulatory provisions or other authority upon which that party principally relies. ” Carmen’s

Point Relied On is not followed by the authority he prima rily relies on to support his claim of

error

.4

Lastly, but most importantly, Carmen ’s ar gument section does not comply with Rule
84.04(e)

. Rule 84.04(e) requires an appellant to restate the P oint R elied O n at the beginning of

the argument section discussing that point . H owever, Carmen omit s this requirement and

introduces his argument section by stating:

The sole issues [sic] in this case is how the recent amendments to SORA should be interpreted. Specifically, the provisions contained within §589.401 RSMo create, for the first time, a mechanism whereby Missourians convicted of sexual offenses may be removed from the sex offend er registry after a certain period of time. . . .
Moreover, “ [ t] o properly brief a case, an appellant is required to develop the issue raised
in the point relied on in the argument portion of the brief.” Estate of Hanks
, 589 S.W.3d 604, 606
(Mo

. App. E.D. 2019) ( internal quotations omitted). Carmen’s argument , ov erall, provides legal

conclusions that “are not developed, lack legal analysis and supporting rationale, and are not
linked to specific evidence in the case

. ” Midtown Home Improvements, Inc. v. Taylor , 578
S.W.3d 793, 797

– 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)

. Carmen begins his argument section by introduc ing
the language of § 589.401 and proceeds to argue that the statute has two different, inconsistent
interpretation s . He substantiate s his assertion by listing several questions asking for clarification
and interpretation of the statute at issue

. Carmen completely fails to construct an argument by
explaining “how the principles of law and the facts of the case interact

. ” King v. King , 548
S.W.3d 440, 443 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). “ An argument section that presents no legal arguments
for reversal and that contains no citations to legal authorities violates Rule 84.04(e) and
preserves nothing for appellate review.” Pennington

- Thurman v. Bank of Am., N.A ., 486 S.W.3d
471, 479 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)

. “Addressing arguments that a party did not sufficiently develop,
would run the risk of creating poor precedent and manipulating the adversarial process.”

Hamilton , 545 S.W.3d at 381 (internal quo tations omitted).5

In his subsequent arguments, Carmen provides a summary and citations to authority that

define and discuss canons of statutory interpretation, but his “ argument is insufficient in that it
does not explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error.”

Duncan

- Anderson v. Duncan , 321 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). Carmen wholly fails

to demonstrate how the holdings and facts of th e cited cases are applicable to the present

case. See Moseley v. Grundy County Dist. R

- V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ;

see also Washington v. Blackburn , 286 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (“ Failure to cite

relevant authority supporting the point or to explain the failure to do so preserves nothing for
appeal

. ”). “ Noncompliance with Rule 84.04(e) justifies dismissal, as it is not our duty to
supplement the deficient brief with our own research.” City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v.

Carroll , 597 S.W.3d 335, 340 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) ( inter nal quotations omitted ).

Similar to Rule 84.04(c) , Rule 84.04(e) requires that all factual assertions contained in the

argument “ have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal
file, transcript, or exhibits.” “Specific relevant cites to the record are mandatory and essential for
the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the

record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record.” P & J
Ventures, LLC v. Yi Yu Zheng , 479 S.W.3d 748, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (internal quotations
omitted). Throughout his argument section, Carmen’s factual assertions lack sp ecific page

references to t he record on appeal. See Rule 84.04(e).

A s mentioned above, “the function of an appellate court is not to serve as an advocate for
the parties on appeal, and this Court must carefully safeguard its role as a neutral adjudicator.”

Hamilton , 545 S.W.3d at 381

. Addressing Carmen’s claim on appeal would create the precedent
that substandard briefing is acceptable , which it is no t

. See Scott
, 510 S.W.3d at 892

.6

Additionally, “[t]his court should not be expected either to decide the case on the basis of
inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and a search of the record to cure the
deficiency.” Kieffer v. Gianino , 301 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting Prosser v.

State , 243 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008))

. Carmen’s failure to comply with the
requirements of Rule 84.04 impedes our ability to reach a disposition on the merits to such an
extent that we could not conduct a meaningful review without improperly advocating for hi m

.
See id

. Accordingl y, we dismiss this appeal.

II. Conclusion

Carmen ’s failure to comply with Rule 84.04 precludes us from reaching the merits of his
appeal and preserves nothing for our review. Thus, this appeal is dismissed

.

_______________________________ Colleen Dolan , P.J.
Mary K. Hoff , J., concurs. Robert M. Clayton III , J., concurs.