in the Interest of M.N.B. and D.M.B. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 26, 2015
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-13-01722-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND D.M.B.
    On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill
    Opinion by Justice Whitehill
    Appellant Dante Berry filed for a divorce from his wife, appellee Margaret Nicole Banks.
    No reporter’s record has been filed, but the final decree of divorce contains a recital that Berry
    did not appear for trial and that the case was tried to the bench. The trial court granted the
    parties a divorce and appointed Banks the sole managing conservator of the parties’ two minor
    children, M.N.B. and D.M.B. Although the court appointed Berry possessory conservator, the
    court also ordered that Berry would have no access to or possession of the children until Berry
    appeared in court and the court made further orders regarding access and possession. Berry
    appeals pro se, asserting twenty issues on appeal. We affirm based on deficiencies in Berry’s
    amended appellate brief.
    APPLICABLE LAW
    We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and we require them
    to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In re I.A.S., No. 05-13-00947-CV, 
    2014 WL 1483592
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have neither the duty
    nor the right to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine if
    there was error. 
    Id. at *2.
    The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require appropriate citations to the record in the
    statement of facts and argument sections of an appellate brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); see
    also Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    315 S.W.3d 893
    , 896 (Tex. App.—Dallas
    2010, no pet.) (“If record references are not made . . . the brief fails.”). The rules also require “a
    clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities.”
    TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Bare assertions of error without citations to the record or to authority
    present nothing for us to review. In re I.A.S., 
    2014 WL 1483592
    , at *1.
    APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
    After Berry filed his original brief, we notified him of its numerous deficiencies under the
    rules of appellate procedure. He filed an amended brief that suffers from many of the same
    defects as his original brief. For example, his statement of facts is based largely on matters
    outside the record and contains no record citations. The argument section of his brief is one
    paragraph long, contains no record citations or citations to legal authority, and merely refers us
    back to the statement of issues presented and the statement of the facts.
    Because the one-paragraph argument section of Berry’s brief is devoid of substance, we
    have reviewed his five-page statement of the issues to determine if he supported any of them
    with adequate briefing. Issues two, six, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and
    twenty contain no citations to legal authority at all. Issues one, three, four, seven, eight, nine,
    –2–
    ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, and sixteen refer in passing to various constitutional provisions and
    statutes, but they contain no reasoned argumentation applying those provisions to the facts of this
    case. Issue five contains a list of appellate cases, but again Berry provides no argumentation
    applying them to the facts of this case. And there are no record citations in the issues presented
    or anywhere else in Berry’s brief.      We conclude that all of Berry’s issues presented are
    inadequately briefed and are therefore waived. See 
    id. at *2;
    see also In re Estate of Miller, 
    243 S.W.3d 831
    , 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (issue waived because appellant did not
    analyze legal authority and made “no suggested application of it to the facts”).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.            See Crouch v.
    Continental Cas. Co., No. 05-06-00605-CV, 
    2007 WL 2028761
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July
    16, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment after concluding appellant waived all
    issues for inadequate briefing).
    131722F.P05                                           /Bill Whitehill/
    BILL WHITEHILL
    JUSTICE
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND                        On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District
    D.M.B.                                               Court, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630.
    No. 05-13-01722-CV                                   Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
    Justices Lang and Brown participating.
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
    AFFIRMED.
    It is ORDERED that appellee Margaret Nicole Banks recover her costs of this appeal
    from appellant Dante Berry.
    Judgment entered February 26, 2015.
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-13-01722-CV

Filed Date: 2/26/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021