Ott Law Firm

David B. Washington, Appellant, v. Daniel M. Matt, Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED91609

Parties & Roles

Respondent
Daniel M. Matt

Judges

Trial Court Judge
John R

Disposition

Dismissed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Syllabus

DAVID B. WASHINGTON, ) ) No. ED91609 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court v. ) of St. Louis County ) DANIEL M. MATT, ) Honorable John R. Essner ) Defendant/Respondent. ) Date: April 14, 2009

Before Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Kenneth M. Romines, J.

Appellant, David B. Washington, filed a petition for an Order of Protection against respondent, Daniel Matt, pursuant to section 455.020 RSMo (2000). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that appellant had not proved the allegation of abuse and denied appellant's request for a full order of protection in a written judgment. Appellant appeals pro se. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to follow Rule 84.04. Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The brief and appendix filed in this appeal are virtually identical to the appellant's brief filed in Washington v. Blackburn, ED 91610 (Mo.App. Apr. 14, 2009), being handed down concurrently herewith. The brief and appendix fail to comply with Rule 84.04 for the same reasons that are set out in our opinion in Blackburn . The record on appeal fails to comply with Rule 81.12 in substantially the same respects and for the same reasons that are set out in our

2 opinion in Blackburn. The brief and record on appeal are inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction of this court and preserve nothing for review. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion