in the Interest of T.D.G., a Child ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00051-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF T.D.G., A CHILD
On appeal from the 347th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On June 29, 2022, appellant
Trameece Shavonne Green filed a pro se brief that failed to comply with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that her
brief failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.1(c), 9.4(g),
9.4(h), 9.4(j)(1), 9.4(j)(4), 9.5, and 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 9.1(c), 9.4(g), 9.4(h),
9.4(j)(1), 9.4(j)(4), 9.5, 38.1. The Clerk directed appellant to submit an amended brief
within ten days. On July 13, 2022, appellant filed an amended pro se brief. The amended
brief contained numerous formal and substantive defects, and we determined that the
case had not been properly presented. See id. R. 38.9(a), (b). Accordingly, on July 21,
2022, this Court ordered appellant to file an amended brief which substantially conformed
with the appellate rules within thirty days. We advised appellant that if she filed another
noncompliant brief, the Court might strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another,
and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court
might dismiss the appeal. See id. R. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not file an
amended brief correcting the defects or otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directive.
We construe the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so
that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements that are not absolutely
necessary to effectuate their purpose. See Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex,
Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17
(Tex. 1997); Jardon v. Pfister, 593 S.W.3d 810, 820 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.).
Nevertheless, the Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or
because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a
court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a
specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521
S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and
organization for an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. An appellate brief is “meant
to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable
the court to decide the case . . . .” Id. R. 38.9. Therefore, an appellant’s brief must contain
2
“a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the record.” Id. R. 38.1(i). This requirement is not satisfied by merely
uttering brief conclusory statements unsupported by legal citations. Sweed v. City of El
Paso, 195 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). A brief must explain how
the law that is cited is applicable to the facts of the case. See Hernandez v. Hernandez,
318 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); San Saba Energy, L.P. v.
Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Plummer
v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied); Nguyen v.
Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
It is the appellant’s burden to discuss his assertions of error, and “we have no
duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law
to determine whether there was error.” Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d at 466. When an
appellant’s brief fails to contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made
with appropriate citations to authorities, the appellate court is not responsible for doing
the legal research that might support a party’s contentions. Bolling v. Farmers Branch
Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). If we were to
do so, we would be abandoning our role as judges and assuming the role of advocate for
that party. Id.The rules expressly require us to construe briefing rules liberally. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.9. Accordingly, appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably so as to preserve
the right to appellate review. El Paso Nat. Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309,
316 (Tex. 1999). Nevertheless, litigants are required to substantially comply with the
3
appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d
571, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 1999, no pet.). In this regard, pro se litigants
are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must similarly comply with
all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–
85 (Tex. 1978); Smale v. Williams, 590 S.W.3d 633, 639 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019,
no pet.); Smith, 521 S.W.3d at 76; Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 2007, no pet.).
If an appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly
violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P.
38.9(a); see id. R. 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or
dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without
allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”). An
appellant is provided with a reasonable time to amend his or her brief under these
circumstances. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284
(Tex. 1994). If the appellant files another brief that does not comply with the rules of
appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing
another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a).
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to
file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R.
38.8(a); Attaway v. Clark, 391 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.).
In the instant case, appellant filed a brief and an amended brief that did not meet
the requirements of the appellate rules. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 38.1. Her
4
amended brief fails to include the majority of the required elements for a brief and lacks,
inter alia, the issues presented for review, a statement of facts, record references, and
citations to authority. See, e.g., id. R. 38.1(f), (g), (i).
Appellant has been provided with the opportunity to correct these defects but has
failed to do so, and more than a reasonable time has passed. See id. R. 44.3; Fredonia
State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284. In short, appellant has failed to comply with the appellate
rules or respond to the directives of the Clerk regarding filing a second amended brief.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Based on the foregoing, we strike appellant’s non-conforming brief, prohibit
appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See id.
R. 38.9(a). We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and because the appellant
failed to comply with the requirements of the appellate rules and directives from the Clerk.
See id. R. 38.9(a); id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Johnson v. Dallas Hous. Auth., 179 S.W.3d 770,
770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).
JAIME TIJERINA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
22nd day of September, 2022.
5