Gary Michael Hendrick v. Cynthia Elaine Jarvis ( 2010 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00755-CV
Gary Michael HENDRICK,
Appellant
v.
Cynthia Elaine JARVIS,
Appellee
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-CI-14715
Honorable Michael Peden, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2010
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal of a default protective order. On September 8, 2009, Cynthia Jarvis
filed an application for protective order. The application alleged that Gary Hendrick, her former
husband, had committed family violence. Hendrick was served with a copy of the application
for protective order and was informed that the protective order could issue by default if he failed
to appear at the hearing set for September 24, 2009. Upon receiving the application and notice
04-09-00755-CV
of hearing, Hendrick notified the court that he could not appear for a hearing until he “raise[d]
the money for a plane ticket and a lawyer.”
When the trial court called the underlying case for hearing on September 24, 2009,
Hendrick did not appear. The trial court therefore issued the protective order against Hendrick.
The court found Hendrick had “committed family violence and family violence is likely to occur
in the future pursuant to Section 85.001 of the Texas Family Code.” The protective order
prohibited Hendrick from, among other things, committing family violence against the
complainant and communicating with her or her family. This appeal followed.
Hendrick’s original appellate brief was deemed deficient by this court. We notified
Hendrick about his brief’s deficiencies and directed him to file an amended brief correcting all of
the deficiencies. Most notably, Hendrick’s brief did not contain appropriate citations to the
record or provide any legal authority as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). Although Hendrick filed an amended brief, he failed to
correct any of these deficiencies.
“‘A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply
with applicable laws and rules of procedure.’” Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52-53
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (citation omitted). “If a pro se litigant is not
required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage
over a litigant who is represented by counsel.” Holt v. F.F. Enters., 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). “On appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly
present [his] case.” Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004,
pet. denied).
-2-
04-09-00755-CV
“When a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives the issue on appeal.”
Willms v. Wilson, No. 05-09-01048-CV, 2010 WL 1495143, *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no
pet.) (mem. op.). Hendrick was afforded an opportunity to provide the court with appropriate
citations to authorities and to the record, but failed to correct such deficiencies in his amended
brief. His amended brief simply denies the allegations contained in the application for protective
order and explains what he believes is his ex-wife’s true motivation for seeking a protective
order against him. Because Hendrick fails to show how the record and law support his
contentions, we conclude he has inadequately briefed his complaint and waived the issue on
appeal. See id. (concluding pro se litigants preserved nothing for appellate review where they
offered no meaningful legal analysis in their amended brief and failed to support their
contentions with appropriate citations despite an opportunity to correct these deficiencies).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
-3-