Tamila Carroll v. David Mullen ( 2022 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 1, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00923-CV
TAMILA CARROLL, Appellant
V.
DAVID MULLEN, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL
LEE MULLEN, DECEASED, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05193-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
This is an appeal from a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action.
Appellant, representing herself, filed a brief that failed, in part, to include citations
to authorities and the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). She was notified
by letter of the deficiencies and, as directed to do so, filed a corrected brief.
Asserting, among other arguments, that the corrected brief also fails to include
citations to authorities and the record, appellee has filed a motion for sanctions under
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 and to dismiss the appeal.1 See id. 45
(authorizing appellate court to award damages to prevailing party when appeal is
frivolous). We grant the motion, in part.
A party representing himself is held to the same standards as a licensed
attorney and must comply with the requirements of our rules of appellate procedure.
Moreno v. Silva, 316 S.W.3d 815, 817 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Our
appellate rules have specific briefing requirements to ensure the brief acquaints the
court with the facts and issues in a case and presents argument that enables the court
to decide the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38, 38.9; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep.
Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). A brief must,
among other requirements, include (1) a concise statement of the complaint
presented for review along with pertinent facts supported by record references; (2)
succinct and clear argument for why the complaint has merit; and, (3) application of
relevant legal authorities with appropriate citations. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1(f),(g),(i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Without proper briefing, we are unable
to discharge our responsibility to review and properly dispose of the appeal, and
dismissal of the appeal is warranted. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96.
Appellant’s corrected brief contains no citations to the record in the statement
of facts or anywhere else in the brief. And, although the brief includes an index
1
Appellant has not responded to the motion, although given more than ten days to respond.
–2–
listing ten different authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), only a single, general
reference to what appears to be Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section
16.024, concerning the three-year limitations period for adverse possession, is
contained in the facts and argument sections. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 16.024.
Our letter informing appellant of the deficiencies in her original brief
cautioned her that the appeal was subject to dismissal if she failed to file a compliant
brief. Although we decline to grant sanctions as requested by appellee, the amended
brief is wholly deficient with respect to citations to the record and authorities and
warrants otherwise granting appellee’s motion. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
210923F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
TAMILA CARROLL, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-21-00923-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05193-
A.
DAVID MULLEN, AS Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE Burns, Justices Molberg and Smith
ESTATE OF SAMUEL LEE participating.
MULLEN, DECEASED, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered June 1, 2022.
–4–