State of Missouri ex rel. Department of Revenue, Respondent v. David B. Wilber, Appellant.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri ex rel. Department of Revenue, Respondent v. David B. Wilber, Appellant. Case Number: ED84091 Handdown Date: 01/18/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Barbara Ann Crancer Counsel for Appellant: David B. Wilber, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: David P. Hart Opinion Summary: David Wilber appeals a judgment entered in favor of the Missouri department of revenue on the department's petition for delinquent Missouri individual income tax. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Two Holds: 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. Because Wilber's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04, his brief preserves nothing for review. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Cohen, P.J., Crane and Dowd, Jr., J.J., concur. Opinion:

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. Wilbur 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. Wilbur's position. In short, Mr. Wilber's brief preserves nothing for review. Davis, 93 S.W.3d at 742-43. Appeal dismissed.

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.