Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Dollars in United States Currency v. State of Texas ( 2023 )

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 18, 2023
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00076-CV
SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS IN UNITED
STATES CURRENCY, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-00937
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Smith, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Smith
Joe Coffey, representing himself pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment in
favor of the State in this civil-forfeiture action. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
The State filed a notice of seizure and intended forfeiture, alleging that $7,890
in currency seized from Coffey was contraband in that (1) it was used or intended to
be used in the commission of a felony under Texas Health and Safety Code chapter
481, and (2) it was the proceeds gained from the felony of unlawful delivery of a
controlled substance and money laundering. Coffey, represented by counsel, filed
an answer. The record reflects that the parties appeared for, and presented evidence
during, a bench trial and, thereafter, the trial court signed a judgment of forfeiture.
The trial court found that the currency was contraband and subject to forfeiture under
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 59 and ordered it forfeited to the State.
Coffey filed this appeal.
By letter dated March 29, 2022, we informed Coffey that we had received
notice from the court reporter that he had neither requested the record nor paid for
or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed Coffey to provide the Court
with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that
he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled
to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned Coffey that failure to provide
the required documentation might result in the appeal being submitted without the
reporter’s record. Coffey did not provide the Court with the required documentation.
Accordingly, on May 6, 2022, we ordered this appeal submitted without a reporter’s
record.
After Coffey filed his brief, the Court informed him that the brief did not
comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The Court’s September 30, 2022
notice advised that the brief was deficient because, among other things, it did not
contain a concise statement of the issues presented for review, a concise statement
of the facts supported by record references, or a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. See TEX.
–2–
R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i). The Court directed Coffey to file an amended brief no
later than October 10, 2022, and cautioned that failure to file an amended brief could
result in his appeal being dismissed without further notice.
On October 6, 2022, Coffey filed a document purporting to be an amended
brief. The document stated that Coffey did not have some of the things the Court
requested in order to satisfy the requirements of rule 38.1. The document also
included a copy of a prior order by the Court in this appeal; a copy of the trial court’s
judgment of forfeiture; several otherwise empty pages labeled, respectively, Table
of Contents, Index of Authorities, Statement of the Case, Any Statement Regarding
Oral Argument, Issues Presented, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument,
and Argument; and an Automated Certificate of eService. On March 29, 2023, the
Court submitted this appeal on Coffey’s filings and a brief filed by the State of
Texas.
Analysis
We liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, but we hold pro se litigants
to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with
applicable laws and rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181,
184–85 (Tex. 1978)). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair
advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id. at 212.
–3–
To present an issue to this Court, an appellant’s brief must contain, among
other things, a concise statement of the facts of the case supported by record
references and a clear and concise argument for the contention made with
appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); In re
N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. “Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority,
waive error.” In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. An appellant that fails to adequately
brief a complaint waives the complaint on appeal. Id. Coffey’s briefing in this
appeal does not provide the Court with argument, analysis, or authorities that make
his appellate complaint viable. By failing to adequately brief his complaint, he has
waived our review of his complaint. See, e.g., id.
Even if we were to consider the merits of Coffey’s appeal, we would find no
reversible error because no reporter’s record has been filed. As appellant, Coffey
had the burden of bringing forward a sufficient record to show the trial court erred.
Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2007, no pet.). An appellate record generally consists of both the clerk’s and
reporter’s record if the latter is necessary to the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1.
From Coffey’s original brief, we discern that he intends to appeal the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment.1 Specifically, he
asserts that there was no evidence or proof that the $7,890 in currency was
1
In support of his appeal, Coffey incorporated some documents in the brief. We cannot consider the
documents, however, because they are not formally included in the record on appeal. See Burke v. Ins.
Auto Auctions Corp., 169 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
–4–
“contraband or forfeiture” and, instead, he inherited the currency from his mother’s
estate. An evaluation of Coffey’s complaint will depend on the evidence presented
at trial. Because there is no reporter’s record to show otherwise, we must presume
that the evidence presented at the bench trial supports the trial court’s judgment. See
Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam); Petterson v.
JGMS Invs. LLC, No. 05-15-01286-CV, 2016 WL 6124134, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Oct. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Petterson cannot prevail on a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence without first meeting her burden of presenting a
sufficient record on appeal.”); $2,848.69 U.S. Currency v. State, No. 13-13-00524-
CV, 2015 WL 5576469, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 25,
2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“It was appellant’s burden to properly initiate the
completion of a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error. . . . Because
appellant has failed to request a transcript of the hearing and has raised points of
error on appeal involving matters omitted from the record before us, his actions have
prevented us from adequately addressing his dispute.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Craig Smith/
CRAIG SMITH
JUSTICE
220076F.P05
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial
HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS IN District Court, Dallas County, Texas
UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-00937.
Appellant Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
No. 05-22-00076-CV V. Breedlove participating.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee STATE OF TEXAS recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant JOE COFFEY.
Judgment entered this 18th day of April 2023.
–6–