STATE v. MOORE (2026)

Timothy Moore appeals his conviction for one count of exceeding a posted speed limit. We dismiss the appeal due to Moore's briefing deficiencies, including the submission of erroneous citations and fictitious cases, which violate the Rules of Appellate Procedure and impede our meaningful review of his claims.

Procedural History and Grounds for Dismissal

The Circuit Court of Putnam County held a bench trial to adjudicate the speeding ticket issued to Moore for traveling 91-mph in a 55-mph zone. Moore was found guilty of the charged offense of Exceeding Posted Speed Limit by 26 Mph or More and was ordered to pay a standard fine plus court costs.

On appeal, Moore raises five claims challenging evidentiary rulings and the denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss and his post-trial motion to stay enforcement of the conviction pending appellate review.¹ He appears pro se. “We hold pro se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys, and we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules.” Kim v. Kim, 431 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo. App. 2014).

Rule 84.04 sets forth appellate briefing requirements. Compliance with Rule 84.04 is “mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.” Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Consequently, the failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for review and establishes grounds for dismissal.” State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support Div. v. Shipley, 605 S.W.3d 92, 95 (Mo. App. 2020).

Moore's appellate brief fails to comply with this procedural rule in three critical aspects. First, Moore's brief violates Rule 84.04(c), which requires all statement of facts to have “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal[.]” Moore's statement of facts contains seventeen references to the trial transcript, sixteen of which are cited to an incorrect page number and therefore could not be substantiated.

Second, Moore's brief similarly violates the Rule 84.04(e) requirement that all factual assertions in the argument contain “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal[.]” Of the seventeen citations in Moore's argument, only three refer to the correct place in the record; the remainder are citations to pages of the transcript where there is no support for the assertions made.

Third, Moore's table of authorities fails to comply with Rule 84.04(a)(1), which requires “reference to the pages of the brief where [the authorities] are cited.” Moore's table of authorities lists 20 cases but provides no page references as to where the cases appear in the Argument section of brief. What is more disconcerting, however, are the deficiencies in the cited authorities themselves.

In Moore's appellate brief, a degree of inaccuracy is found in every legal citation provided. The most repeated inaccuracy, in thirteen instances, is the citation of cases that bear no relation to the issues of law for which they are cited. Another is pin-citing to parts of the case where no actual legal proposition exists; for example, five cases in Moore's brief refer to pages that are in the Factual and Procedural History or the West Headnotes sections of a cited case.²

Most notably, three citations in Moore's brief are completely fictitious. Filing an appellate brief with spurious citations represents a “flagrant violation of the duties of candor Appellant owes to this Court.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. 2024). Moore submitted the appellate brief in his name and certified its compliance with Rules 55.03 and 84.06(c) as a self-represented person. Rule 55.03(b) provides in relevant part:

By presenting and maintaining a claim ․ in a pleading, motion, or other paper filed with or submitted to the court, an attorney or party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that: ․ [t]he claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument[.]

Given the pervasive nature of the rule violations and erroneous citations of law, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of Moore's claims on appeal. His reliance on nonexistent case law and his misrepresentations regarding case holdings constitute “an abuse of the judicial system.” Karlen, 692 S.W.3d at 52. “While we prefer to reach the merits of a case, sometimes excusing technical deficiencies in a brief, we will not do so if the brief is so deficient it requires this court to serve as an advocate for any party to an appeal.” Puetz v. Rice, 675 S.W.3d 652, 655-56 (Mo. App. 2023). Moore's substantial failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 mandates the dismissal of this appeal. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d at 53.

Conclusion

This appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State did not file a brief in response to Moore's appeal.

2.   West Headnotes is an index system for editorial summaries found at the beginning of cases published in Thomson Reuters's case reporters.

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

All Concur.