State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Community Alternatives Missouri, Inc., d/b/a Turtle Creek Group Home, Defendant-Appellant

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Community Alternatives Missouri, Inc., d/b/a Turtle Creek Group Home, Defendant-Appellant Case Number: 28046 Handdown Date: 11/30/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Polk County, Hon. Theodore B. Scott, Special Judge Counsel for Appellant: Stephen L. Hill, Jr., Maxwell Carr-Howard, Scott A. Lipke Counsel for Respondent: Daniel N. McPherson Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Opinion: AFFIRMED

of resident neglect following a jury trial.(FN1) Sections 562.056 and 630.155.(FN2) This court affirms. Rule 30.04 states the requirements for a record on appeal from which appellate courts review a defendant's claim of trial court error. It requires the record on appeal to "contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant or respondent, to the appellate court for decision." That record includes a legal file component and a transcript component. The record of proceedings in this case was made by electronic sound recording. Supreme Court Operating Rule 5.04(b) provides, "All transcripts of cases on appeal recorded on electronic sound recording shall be prepared by the Office of State Courts Administrator, an approved contractor or by an official court reporter." Upon completion by an

authorized individual, the transcriber shall certify the transcript "as a true and accurate reproduction of the sound recording." Rule 30.04(g). "The burden of preparing and filing the record on appeal lies with the appellant." State v. Mitchell, 811 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Mo.App. 1991). The transcript component of the record on appeal is obtained by ordering the transcript, in writing, from the reporter or from the clerk if there was no reporter. Rule 30.04(c). The order for the transcript is to be placed "[w]ithin thirty days after the notice of appeal is filed." Id. "A copy of the written order shall be filed with the appellate court and served on the respondent." Id. "[T]he appellant shall cause the record on appeal to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30 and filed with the clerk of the proper appellate court and shall serve a copy thereof on the respondent." Rule 30.04(f). This is to be done within the time prescribed by Rule 81.19. Id. But see, Rule 81.20. No copy of a written order for transcript was filed with this court. Furthermore, the thirteen typewritten volumes filed as the purported transcript of trial proceedings do not reveal they were prepared by the Office of State Courts Administrator, an approved contractor of that office, or by an official court reporter.(FN3) There is no single certification that the volumes filed with this court are "a true and accurate reproduction of the sound recording." Rather, at the end of each volume there appears a statement signed by a person identified as "transcriber" that she "certif[ies] that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceeding." Other discrepancies from the format of transcripts on appeal prepared by official court reporters and the Office of State Courts Administrator appear throughout these volumes. Having no transcript prepared and certified by persons authorized to do so, this court has no record from which it can determine claimed trial errors. Without a proper trial transcript, no claim of error directed to evidence presented at trial, or to other circumstances that would require a verbatim record for review, can be substantiated and, therefore, considered on appeal. State v. Tatum, 656 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Mo.App. 1983). Appellant's Point I, as framed in its brief, is not altogether dependent on the record of trial proceedings for review. Point I argues that the trial court "erred in exercising subject matter jurisdiction." Appellant contends that "jurisdictional elements" of Section 562.056 were not proven. Appellant's characterization of this claim of error as "jurisdictional" is unfounded. The statute that appellant contends prescribed "jurisdictional elements," Section 562.056, prescribes what acts, in addition to those stated in particular criminal statutes, must be proven in order for a corporation to be criminally liable. "Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." State ex rel. Moore v. Sharp, 151 S.W.3d 104, 112 (Mo.App. 2004) (Bates, C.J., concurring). Circuit courts "have original jurisdiction

over all cases and matters, civil and criminal." Section 478.070. The information that was filed in this case, a copy of which is included in the legal file, charged appellant with the criminal offense of resident neglect. The circuit court has the power to determine criminal cases. Point I is denied. This opinion does not address the remaining points on appeal, Points II through V. Absent a transcript, the complaints to which those points are directed cannot be substantiated. Points II, III, IV and V are, therefore, denied. The judgment is affirmed. Footnotes: FN1.Appellant was charged and found not guilty of a separate count of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. Section 565.024. FN2.References to statutes are to RSMo 2000. FN3.Neither was there a written agreement by the parties, as permitted by Rule 30.09(g), that what appellant filed in lieu of a transcript was true and accurate. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.