Case Name: STATE of Missouri ex. rel., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent, v. David B. WILBER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-01-18
Citations: 155 S.W.3d 781
Docket Number: No. ED 84091
Parties: STATE of Missouri ex. rel., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent, v. David B. WILBER, Appellant.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 155
Pages: 781–781

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri ex. rel., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent, v. David B. WILBER, Appellant.
No. ED 84091.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 18, 2005.
David B. Wilber, Sunset Hills, MO, pro se.
David P. Hart, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Wilber appeals a judgment entered in favor of the Missouri Department of Revenue ("D.O.R.") on the D.O.R.'s Petition for Delinquent Missouri Individual Income Tax. Because we find that Mr. Wilber has failed to comply with Rule 84.04 of the applicable rules, we dismiss.
Mr. Wilber filed a pro se appeal from the trial court's judgment. It is well-settled that 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. Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for dismissal of an appeal. Id. at 742-43.
Mr. Wilber's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04. Particularly, the statement of facts fails to set forth details relevant to the questions presented for determination. The points relied on do not state legal reasons for Mr. Wilber's claim for reversible error much less explain why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim for reversible error. Moreover, the argument section fails to state a standard of review or other legal authority to support Mr. Wilber's position. In short, Mr. Wilber's brief preserves nothing for review. Davis, 93 S.W.3d at 742-43.
Appeal dismissed.