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