Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 18, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00860-CV 1983 GMC SIERRA, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BN98476, VIN # 1GTDC14HDS5 16823, AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-17-00861-CV THREE THOUSAND SIXTY SIX DOL LARS AND NO/100 ($3066.00) IN US CURRENCY AND DARRON LASH AWN COLLIER, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-17-00862-CV 2003 MERCEDES S5M, TEXAS L ICENSE PLATE HPJ5319, VIN# WDBNG84J73A326961, AND DARRON LA SHAWN COLLIER, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-17-00863-CV 2006 CADILLAC DTS, TEXAS LIC ENSE PLATE BJX0195, VIN# 1G6KD57Y06U118902, AND DARRON LAS HAWN COLLIER, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 96686-422; 96687-422; 96688-422; & 96689 -422–2– 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, F rancis, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Francis In these civil forfeiture cases, Darron Lashawn Collier appeals the trial court’s summary judgments ordering three vehicles (a 1983 GMC Sierra, a 2003 Me rcedes S5M, and a 2006 Cadillac DTS) and $3,066 in currency forfeited to the State of Texas. Appellant, representing himself, filed his brief on January 9, 2018. By order dated Ja nuary 26, 2018, we informed appellant his brief was deficient because, among other things, it did not contain (1) a table of contents indicating the subjec t matter of each issue or point; (2) a con cise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case s upported by record references; (3) a concise statement of facts suppor ted by record references; and (4) an argument with appropriate citations to the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(b), (d), (g), (h) , (i). We ordered a ppellant to file an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies and cautione d him that failure to comply may result in these appeals being dismissed without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). Appellant filed a n amended brief, but it is also deficient. Although individuals have the right to represent themselves as pro se litigants in civil cases, they are required to follow the same rules of appellate procedu re that licensed attorneys are required to follow. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. , 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Appellat e court judges are not res ponsible for “identifying possible trial court error” or favorable facts or law to support parties ’ contentions. Id . Importantly, under rule 38.1(f), the court “must be able to discern what question[ s] of law [it] will be answering.” Id. at 896. A brief fails if it does not articulate the issues to be answered by the
court. Id. If a brief articulates the issues to be decided by the court, “then rule 38.1(i) calls for the brief to guide [the court] thr ough the appellant’s argument wit h clear and understandable statements of the contentions being made.” Id. Under rule 38.1(i), appellant’s argument must–3– make direct references to facts in the record and applicable le gal authority. Id. A brief fails under rule 38.1(i) if the court must speculate or guess as to the con tentions being made or if record references are not provided. Id. Appellant’s brief fails because, among other things, it require s us to speculate or guess as to the contentions being made. Appellant seems to contend his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officers executing a search warrant at his re sidence left the search warrant in his home instead of handing it to him personally. His argument, ho wever, is four sentences long and does not contain any direct references to the facts in the reco rd or otherwise mention the summary judgment nor does it contain any conclusion regarding the natur e of the relief he seeks. While he cites two cases for the general proposition that police must, w hen practicable, obtain “advance judicial approval of searches a nd seizures through the warrant procedure” and the failure to do so can only be excused by exigent circumstances, he does not analy ze how this law is relevant to the particular facts of this case. Without adequate briefing, appe llant’s claim is nothing more than a personal opinion. See Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 897. Appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements o f our appellate rules after having been given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we dis miss these appeals. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

170860F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
1983 GMC SIERRA, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BN98476, VIN # 1GTDC14H2DS516823, and DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
No. 05-17-00860-CV V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96686-422. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered September 18, 2018.–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

THREE THOUSAND SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($3066.00) IN US CURRENCY and DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
No. 05-17-00861-CV V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96687-422. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered September 18, 2018.–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
2003 MERCEDES S5M, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE HPJ5319, VIN # WDBNG84J73A326961 and DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
No. 05-17-00862-CV V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96688-422. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered September 18, 2018.–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
2006 CADILLAC DTS, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BJX0195, VIN # 1G6KD57Y06U118902 and DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
No. 05-17-00863-CV V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96689-422. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered September 18, 2018.