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 # 1GTDC14HDS516823, 

AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

No. 05-17-00861-CV 

THREE THOUSAND SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($3066.00) IN US 

CURRENCY AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

No. 05-17-00862-CV 

2003 MERCEDES S5M, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE HPJ5319, VIN# 

WDBNG84J73A326961, AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

No. 05-17-00863-CV 

2006 CADILLAC DTS, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BJX0195, VIN# 

1G6KD57Y06U118902, AND DARRON LASHAWN 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, Francis, 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 Mercedes 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 January 26, 2018, we informed appellant 

his brief was deficient because, among other things, it did not contain (1) a table of contents 

indicating the subject matter of each issue or point; (2) a concise statement of the case, the course 

of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references; (3) a 

concise statement of facts supported by record references; and (4) an argument with appropriate 

citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b), (d), (g), (h), (i). We ordered appellant to file 

an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies and cautioned him that failure to comply may 

result in these appeals being dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 

42.3(b), (c). Appellant filed an 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 procedure 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.). Appellate court judges are not responsible 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] through the appellant’s argument with 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 legal authority. Id. A brief fails under 

rule 38.1(i) if the court must speculate or guess as to the contentions being made or if record 

references are not provided. Id.

Appellant’s brief fails because, among other things, it requires 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 residence left the search warrant in his 

home instead of handing it to him personally. His argument, however, is four sentences long and 

does not contain any direct references to the facts in the record or otherwise mention the summary 

judgment nor does it contain any conclusion regarding the nature of the relief he seeks. While he 

cites two cases for the general proposition that police must, when practicable, obtain “advance 

judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure” and the failure to do so 

can only be excused by exigent circumstances, he does not analyze how this law is relevant to the 

particular facts of this case. Without adequate briefing, appellant’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 of our appellate rules after 

having been given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals. See TEX. R.

APP. 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 appeal 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 appeal 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 appeal 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 appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered September 18, 2018.