Johnny Ocanas v. the Attorney General of Texas

NUMBER 13-15-00262-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JOHNNY OCANAS, Appellant, v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 267th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Johnny Ocanas, appearing pro se, filed a brief on July 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his brief failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and requested that appellant file an amended brief within ten days of that notice. Appellant did not file an amended brief, but instead filed a response to this Court’s notice consisting of three case citations. On July 29, 2015, the Court issued an order stating the brief contained numerous formal defects and that the case has not been properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. Under the authority of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) and (b), the Court struck appellant’s brief, ordered appellant to file an amended brief in compliance with Rule 38.1 within fifteen days from the date of the order, and notified appellant 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). On September 8, 2015, appellant filed an amended brief. The amended brief fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 38.1. Specifically, appellant=s amended brief fails to contain a table of contents with reference to pages of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(b); the index of authorities does not indicate pages of the brief where the authorities are cited as required by Rule 38.1(c); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Rule 38.1(d); and does not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made. 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 a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that party files an amended brief that likewise does not comply with the rules, Athe court may strike the brief, prohibit the party 2 from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.@ 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. 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 1st day of October, 2015. 3