NUMBER 13-12-00503-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
DANIEL A. GARCIA, Appellant,
v.
SAN JUANITA GARCIA, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 370th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 1, 2012. On
November 6, 2012, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k).
Appellant filed a motion to waive the requirement of Rule 38.1(k) which was denied
by the Court on December 18, 2012. On January 11, 2013, the Clerk of the Court
notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (k) of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain an appendix as required by Rule
38.1(k). See Id.
Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the
Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit
appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under
which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See Id.
38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they
must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If the 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). If the appellant does not file
another brief that complies 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. Id. 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.
2
Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a),
42.3(b)(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
21st day of February, 2013.
3