Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 22, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00397-CV

BENEDICT EMESOWUM, Appellant

V.

CHRISTMAS EVE MORGAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1024921

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a county court at law’s judgment following a trial de 

novo on appeal from a small claims court’s judgment. No record was made of the 

trial in the county court at law. The appellant did not request a record of the trial in 

the county court at law, nor did he object to the failure of the court reporter to 

make a record. To the extent the appellant seeks reversal of the county court at 

law’s judgment based on the court reporter’s failure to make a record of the trial, 
2

the appellant has not preserved error. Because no record was made, we presume 

that the trial proceedings support the county court at law’s judgment. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellee Christmas Eve Morgan filed suit in small claims court against her 

ex-boyfriend, appellant Benedict Emesowum seeking to recover damages based on 

his alleged retention of her property after their relationship ended. She also sought 

compensation for missed school and a missed employment opportunity. 

Emesowum filed a counterclaim seeking to recover damages based upon Morgan’s

alleged theft of his property. The small claims court issued a judgment for 

$1305.76. in Morgan’s favor. 

Emesowum appealed the judgment of the small claims court to the county 

court at law for a trial de novo. The county court at law conducted a bench trial at 

which Emesowum and Morgan appeared and at which evidence was offered. After 

trial, the county court at law rendered judgment that Emesowum take nothing. In 

its final judgment, the county court at law disposed of all claims and all parties, 

without granting Morgan any relief other than taxing all court costs in her favor. 

Thus, under the county court at law’s judgment, neither Emesowum nor Morgan 

recovered on their claims.

Emesowum, acting pro se, timely filed this appeal.

1

 Morgan did not appeal.

 

1

In 2009, the Texas Legislature amended former Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Section 28.053 to grant 

courts of appeals appellate jurisdiction over county-court-at-law cases that had been appealed 

from small claims courts. See Act of June 1, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1351, §§ 9, 14, 15, 2009 

Tex. Gen. Laws 4273, 4274, 4282, repealed by, Act of June 29, 2011, 82d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, § 

5.06, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 116, 135. In 2011, the Texas Legislature abolished all smallclaims courts effective May 1, 2013. See Act of June 29, 2011, 82d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, §§ 5.02,

5.06, 5.09, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 116, 134–35. 
3

II. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Construing Emesowum’s appellate brief liberally, he asserts various 

arguments in support of the propositions that (1) the evidence is legally and 

factually insufficient to support the small claims court’s judgment; and (2) the 

evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the county court at law’s 

judgment. Emesowum also complains that the court reporter did not make a record

of the trial proceedings in the county court at law.2

A. Are the appellant’s complaints regarding the small claims court’s 

judgment moot?

Under a liberal construction of Emesowum’s appellate brief, he asserts 

various arguments as to why the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to 

support the small claims court’s judgment. But, when Emesowum perfected his 

appeal to the county court at law from the small claims court for a trial de novo, 

the judgment of the small claims court was vacated and annulled. See Act of June 

1, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1351, §7, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4273, 4274 (stating 

that, except to the extent of any conflict with this subchapter, an appeal from the 

judgment of a small claims court is in the manner provided for by law for appeals 

from the judgment of a justice court), repealed by, Act of June 29, 2011, 82d Leg., 

1st C.S., ch. 3, § 5.06, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 116, 135; Villalon v. Bank One, 

176 S.W.3d 66, 69–70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (stating

that perfection of appeal to the county court at law from justice court for a trial de 

novo vacates and annuls the judgment of the justice court); Mullins v. Coussins, 

 

2

Emesowum also challenges the county court at law’s denial of his claim of indigence. This 

court previously construed Emesowum’s challenge as a timely motion to review the county court

at law’s decision under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(j) (stating that when a party 

claiming indigence challenges the order sustaining a contest, the motion must be filed within ten

days of the court’s ruling, or within ten days after notice of appeal is filed, whichever is later). 

This court issued an order disposing of this issue on June 10, 2013.
4

745 S.W.2d 50, 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (same as 

Villalon). Because the small claims court’s judgment has been vacated and 

annulled, all of Emesowum’s complaints about that judgment are moot.

B. Did the appellant preserve error as to his complaint that the court 

reporter did not make a record of the trial proceedings in the county 

court at law?

On appeal, Emesowum complains that the court reporter did not make a 

record of the trial proceedings in the county court at law. He asserts that the court 

reporter was required to make a record of these trial proceedings. Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 13.1 states that the official court reporter must make a full 

record of court proceedings “unless excused by agreement of the parties.” Tex. R. 

App. P. 13.1(a). Under Texas Government Code section 52.046, the official court 

reporter shall make a full record of court proceedings “[o]n request.” Tex. Gov’t 

Code Ann. § 52.046(a)(2); Nabelek v. District Attorney of Harris County, 290 

S.W.3d 222, 230–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). 

Emesowum does not assert that he requested the court reporter to make a 

record of the trial proceedings, nor does he assert that he timely objected to the 

court reporter’s failure to make such a record.3 In any event, the record does not 

reflect that Emesowum requested the court reporter to make a record of the trial 

proceedings or that he timely objected to the court reporter’s failure to make such a 

record.4 Therefore, Emesowum failed to preserve error regarding his complaint 

 

3

Pro se litigants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, and we hold them to the 

same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 

181, 185 (Tex. 1978) (holding that litigants who represent themselves must comply with 

procedures established by the rules notwithstanding the fact that they are not licensed attorneys).

4

There are various ways that the record could reflect these matters, such as by a bystander’s bill 

of exception, a stipulation, or another document filed in the county court at law.
5

that the court reporter did not make a record of the trial proceedings.5 See Nabelek, 

290 S.W.3d at 230–32.

C. May this court review the sufficiency of the evidence without a 

record of the trial proceedings?

Our appellate record contains no record of the proceedings at trial because 

no record was made. In the absence of a complete record, certain presumptions 

apply, unless the appeal is based upon a partial reporter’s record. Emesowum has 

not undertaken an appeal based upon a partial reporter’s record, so this is not a 

case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c), which governs partialrecord appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c); Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 

229 (Tex. 2002). Therefore, unless our appellate record contains a complete record 

of the trial, we presume the omitted portions are relevant to the disposition of this 

appeal. See Wilson v. Patterson, No.14-10-00943-CV, 2011 WL 4924252, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Because our appellate record 

contains no record of the trial proceedings, we presume that the trial evidence was 

legally and factually sufficient to support the county court at law’s judgment, and 

we do not reach the merits of Emesowum’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of 

the evidence. See id. at *1–2.

III. CONCLUSION

The small claims court’s judgment has been vacated, and all of 

Emesowum’s complaints about that judgment are moot. Because Emesowum

failed to preserve error regarding his complaint that the court reporter did not make 

a record of the trial proceedings in the county court at law, his challenge on that 

 

5 We need not address the differences between Government Code section 52.046 and Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 13.1(a) because under either provision, Emesowum failed to preserve 

error.
6

basis fails. And, because we have no record of the evidence presented during these 

proceedings, we presume that this evidence was legally and factually sufficient to 

support the county court at law’s judgment. 

The county court at law’s judgment is affirmed.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost

Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.