A pro se appellant’s failure to comply with briefing rules results in his appeal being dismissed as “defective.” (¶11).
Butler appealed his municipal marijuana possession conviction, but his brief violated § 809.19 in ways “too numerous to mention” (¶10)—though the court does mention it lacked of tables of contents and authorities, a statement of the issues, and references to the record. (¶8). Even if his brief had complied with the rules, however, he had another problem that would by itself justify affirming the judgment: He supplied no transcripts to support his arguments, and the court of appeals must assume that missing transcripts support the trial court’s ruling. Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). (¶10).