NUMBER 13-18-00177-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CARLTON E. CORBIN, Appellant,
v.
HOWARD M. REINER, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Montgomery County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant Carlton Eugene Corbin, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from
a final judgment entered in favor of appellee, Howard M. Reiner, successor dependent
administrator of the estate of Chlora F. Corbin, deceased.1 Because appellant has failed
1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001
to file a brief that complies with the appellate rules, we dismiss this appeal for want of
prosecution.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant filed a pro se brief in this cause on July 20, 2018. On July 25, 2018, the
Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his brief failed to comply with Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure 9.4(g),(h),(i)(3), 9.5(e), and 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4(g),(h),(i)(3); id. R. 9.5(e); id. R. 38.1. The brief failed to contain any of the
headings and sections required by Rule 38.1; did not contain an identity of parties and
counsel as required by Rule 38.1(a); did not contain a table of contents as required by
Rule 38.1(b); did not contain an index of authorities as required by Rule 38.1(c); did not
contain a statement of the case as required by Rule 38.1(d); did not contain the issues
presented as required by Rule 38.1(f); did not contain a statement of facts supported by
record references as required by Rule 38.1(g); did not contain a summary of the argument
as required by Rule 38.1(h); did not contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record as required
by Rule 38.1(i); and did not contain a prayer as required by Rule 38.1(j). Furthermore,
the brief failed to comply with Rule 9.4(g),(h),(i)(3), because the brief did not contain a
cover page or a certificate of compliance, the appendix was not in compliance with the
appellate rules, and the certificate of service was not in compliance with Rule 9.5(e).
Appellant was directed to file an amended brief within ten days.
(West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C. S.).
2
On July 30, 2018, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file an
amended brief until September 4, 2018. The Court granted the motion for extension
of time.
On September 4, 2018, appellant filed a second motion for extension of time
requesting until February 21, 2019 to file an amended brief. This Court granted in
part and denied in part appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file an
amended brief and directed appellant to file an amended brief on or before October 4,
2018.
On September 25, 2018, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time
requesting an extension until February 21, 2019 to file an amended brief.
By order rendered on October 12, 2018, this Court struck appellant’s brief on
grounds that the brief contained numerous formal defects and the case had not been
properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. We granted in part and denied in part
appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file an amended brief and ordered
appellant to file an amended brief that complied with the above rules within fifteen days
from the date of that order. We warned appellant that if he filed an amended brief that
failed to comply with that order and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the
Court c o u l d strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if
appellant had failed to file a brief. See id. R. 38.9(a). We informed the appellant that
under such circumstances, the Court could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution
and appellant’s failure to comply with this Court’s directive and the appellate rules. See
id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
3
On October 25, 2018, appellant filed an amended brief. The amended brief fails
to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the amended brief
does not contain an identity of parties and counsel as required by Rule 38.1(a); does not
contain a table of contents as required by Rule 38.1(b); does not contain an index of
authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the
authorities are cited as required by Rule 38.1(c); does not contain a statement of the case
as required by Rule 38.1(d); and the statement of facts is not supported by record
references as required by Rule 38.1(g). Furthermore, the brief fails to comply with Rule
9.4 (h) and (i)(3) because the appendix does not contain bookmarks and the brief does
not contain a certificate of compliance. Fundamentally, the amended brief contains only
two citations to authority, fails to include any record references, and fails to contain a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the record. See id. R. 38.1(i). Stated otherwise, the brief does not
explain how the authorities that are cited are applicable to the facts of the case.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
We are to construe the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet
liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely
necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. 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–
617 (Tex. 1997). 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
4
S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999). Nevertheless, litigants are required to substantially
comply with the 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.).
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); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A pro se litigant is required to properly present his case
to both the trial and appellate courts. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. Otherwise, pro se
litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over those parties who are represented
by counsel. See id. Therefore, we do not make allowances or apply different standards
when a case is presented by a litigant acting without the advice of counsel. See id.
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 “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. Hernandez v.
Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010); San Saba Energy, L.P. v.
Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Plummer
5
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; see 2218 Bryan Street, Ltd.
v. City of Dallas, 175 S.W.3d 58, (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). 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. School 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.
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); 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.”). A
reasonable time is given to an appellant when he is provided with an opportunity to amend
his brief. See Fredonia State Bank v. General 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a).
6
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. Id. R.
38.8(a).
III. ANALYSIS
In the instant case, appellant filed a brief that did not meet the requirements of the
appellate rules. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant and gave him a reasonable
time to amend his brief. The amended brief provided by appellant also fails to meet the
requirements of the appellate rules. Specifically, appellant’s redrawn brief fails to comply
with Rule 38.1, which requires that appellate briefs contain “argument for the contentions
made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” See id. 38.1(h). The
brief provided by appellant fails to include any record citations. While the brief contains
two citations to authority, appellant fails to utilize those authorities in support of the
contentions made.
IV. CONCLUSION
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. 38.9(a). We order the
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c); Johnson
v. Dallas Hous. Auth., 179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
7th day of February, 2019.
7