in the Interest of A.H.R., et.al., Children ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                              Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    August 4, 2017
    No. 04-17-00140-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF A.H.R., ET.AL., CHILDREN,
    From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2007EM501149
    Master Eric Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    On July 25, 2017, this court received appellant’s brief. The brief violates Rule 38 of the
    Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in all respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the
    brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 in that it does not contain:
    (1) a table of contents;
    (2) an index of authorities;
    (3) include a statement of facts with record references;
    (4) argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record; or
    (5) a proper appendix.
    See id. R. 38.1(b) (requiring table of contents), 38.1(c) (requiring index of authorities),
    38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1(i) (requiring argument with
    appropriate citation to authority and record), and 38.1(k) (requiring appendix with copy of
    judgment or other appealable order, any jury charge and verdict form, any findings of fact and
    conclusions of law, and text of applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, constitutional
    provisions, or other law on which argument is based, or any contract or other document central to
    argument).
    While substantial compliance with Rule 38 is sufficient, this court may order a party to
    amend or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). We
    conclude that the formal defects in this case constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.1.
    Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s brief stricken and ORDER appellant to file an
    amended brief in this court on or before September 5, 2017. The amended brief must correct
    the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See id. R. 38.1. If the
    amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief, prohibit [appellant]
    from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see
    also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief).
    Even if we do not strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we may find
    that any issues raised by appellant are waived due to inadequate briefing, and overrule those
    issues. See, e.g., Marin Real Estate Partners v. Vogt, 
    373 S.W.3d 57
    , 75 (Tex. App.—San
    Antonio 2011, no pet.).
    We recognize that appellant represents himself on appeal, i.e., he is acting pro se.
    However, the law is clear that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys
    and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure, including the rules governing appellate
    briefs. Valadez v. Avitia, 
    238 S.W.3d 843
    , 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A pro se
    litigant is required to properly present her case on appeal just as she is required to properly
    present her case to the trial court. 
    Id.
     Accordingly, we will not apply different standards merely
    because an appeal is brought by a litigant acting without advice of counsel. 
    Id.
    If appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, appellee’s brief will be due
    thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).
    _________________________________
    Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 4th day of August, 2017.
    ___________________________________
    Luz Estrada
    Chief Deputy Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-17-00140-CV

Filed Date: 8/4/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/8/2017