Case Name: STATE, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE BARRETT, v. EMIL KORBEL
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1974-08-02
Citations: 300 Minn. 563
Docket Number: No. 44571
Parties: STATE, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE BARRETT, v. EMIL KORBEL.
Judges: Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 300
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
STATE, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE BARRETT, v. EMIL KORBEL.
221 N. W. 2d 125.
August 2, 1974
No. 44571.
Emil Korbel, pro se, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Gary W. Flakne, County Attorney, and Theodore R. Rix, Vernon E. Bergstrom, and Michael McGlennen, Assistant County Attorneys, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a pro se appeal by a defendant in a paternity proceeding under Minn. St. 1969, § 257.19. Defendant, who was found by a jury to be the father of complainant's child, contends, among other things, that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, that the prosecutor acted improperly, that the complainant's testimony lacked credibility, and that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence. However, defendant has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 110.02 (with respect to a transcript of the proceedings) and Rule 128 (dealing with the contents of an appellate brief). Since defendant is a nonlawyer acting as attorney pro se, we might be inclined to disregard defendant's failure to file a proper brief, but as we indicated in Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 157 N. W. 2d 530 (1968), we cannot as easily disregard an appellant's failure to provide an adequate record because without an adequate record there is no way we can review a case. Moreover, defendant was found to be the father after a jury trial. Upon careful consideration, we have decided that defendant's appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.