C.T., Respondent, v. E.Y., Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FIVE C.T., Respondent, v. E.Y., Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED110042 Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Cause No. 21SL-PN01959 Honorable Julia P. Lasater Filed: May 3, 2022 OPINION Introduction Appellant E.Y., acting pro se, appeals the circuit court’s judgment granting Respondent C.T. an order of protection against E.Y. 1 C.T. filed a motion to dismiss E.Y.’s appeal for failure to fully compile the record on appeal, and we took the motion with the case. In the motion, C.T. contends that E.Y. violated Rule 81.12 by failing to order and submit the transcript of the order of protection hearing. 2 We dismiss the appeal for lack of an adequate record on appeal. Discussion In separate case number ED109961, E.Y. also appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying E.Y. an order of protection against C.T. The cases were consolidated for oral argument only, and we decide case number ED109961 in a separate opinion. 2 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2021). 1 Rule 81.12 specifies the contents of, and the parties’ responsibilities in preparing, the record on appeal. Rule 81.12(a) provides that the record on appeal, consisting of the legal file and the transcript, “shall 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.” Further, Rule 81.12(c)(1), titled “Duty of Appellant to Order Transcript,” states, “Within ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, appellant shall order the transcript, in writing, from the reporter or from the clerk of the trial court if the proceedings were recorded by means of an electronic sound recording.” Finally, Rule 81.12(c)(5) requires that the transcript be certified by the court reporter or the transcriber as a true and accurate reproduction of the proceedings transcribed or of the sound recording. As C.T. notes in his motion to dismiss, E.Y. filed a request for a transcript before cancelling the request days later and filing the legal file without a transcript. E.Y. later filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with an uncertified transcript seemingly transcribed by E.Y. herself. In response, C.T. filed a motion to strike E.Y.’s submission of the self-transcribed transcript. We took both motions with the case. Because E.Y.’s transcript fails to comply with Rule 81.12, we deny E.Y.’s motion to supplement the record. We therefore deny as moot C.T.’s motion to strike E.Y.’s submission of the self-transcribed transcript. 3 As a court of review, we may affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment entered by the circuit court only after reviewing the record submitted on appeal. See D.B. v. D.H., 348 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). “Pursuant to Rule 81.12, the appellant has the duty to order the transcript and compile the record on appeal for the reviewing court to determine the questions presented; C.T. also filed a motion to strike portions of the legal file submitted by E.Y. that allegedly were outside the scope of the issues before the circuit court at the order of protection hearing. We took the motion with the case. In light of our dismissal of this appeal, we deny the motion as moot. We note further that, without a proper transcript, we could not know whether the portions of the legal file were outside the scope of the issues at the order of protection hearing. 3 2 without the required documents, this Court has nothing to review.” In re K.S., 404 S.W.3d 900-01 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (citing State v. Unganisha, 253 S.W.3d 108, 109 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). “Although we are mindful of the difficulties that a party appearing pro se encounters in complying with the rules of procedure, we must require pro se appellants to comply with these rules. We must not grant a pro se appellant preferential treatment.” Unganisha, 253 S.W.3d at 109 (quoting Selberg v. Selberg, 201 S.W.3d 513, 514 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)). Failure to comply with Rule 81.12 is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See K.S., 404 S.W.3d at 901. In violation of Rule 81.12, E.Y. has not provided us with a certified transcript of the order of protection hearing. Without the transcript, we cannot determine the accuracy of E.Y.’s allegations concerning the testimony and other evidence adduced at the hearing. See K.S., 404 S.W.3d at 901; Unganisha, 253 S.W.3d at 109. We must dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to provide a record containing everything necessary to determine the questions presented, including the transcript required under Rule 81.12. See Unganisha, 253 S.W.3d at 109. We grant C.T.’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Conclusion The appeal is dismissed. Cristian M. Stevens, J. Sherri B. Sullivan, C.J., and James M. Dowd, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
