his post-conviction proceeding and was incapable of being both fair and impartial. Fifth, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to either appoint counsel or a trustee on his behalf. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 1 . Eggemeyer is reminded that pro se appellants are still bound by the same procedural rules as a party represented by counsel and are not entitled to any indulgences that a represented party would not be. State v. Ellis, 949 S.W.2d 279 (Mo.App. S.D.1997). (<HOLDING>). Eg-gemeyer’s brief contains deficiencies that
holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se recognizing that although pro se litigant is generally held to same standards as party represented by attorney a court may consider pro se status when deciding whether partys conduct was result of conscious indifference because this determination turns on his state of mind holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel