### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00 262 - 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 2 67 th 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.2

On July 29, 2015 , the Court issued a n order stating the brief contained numerous
f o r ma l de f e c ts an d t h a t t h e c a s e ha s n o t b ee n p ro pe r l y p res en t e d

. S e e T E X

. R. A PP

. P.
38

. 9

. U nde r t h e au t h o r i ty o f T e x a s R u le o f A p pe l l a t e Proc ed u re 38

. 9 (a) a n d (b), the Court str uck a p p e l l a n t ’s b r ie f , ordered appellant to file a n a me n d e d b r i e f in compliance
with Rule 38.1 w it h in f i f t e e n da y s f rom t h e d a te o f t h e o rd e r , 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 dis miss 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 i d. 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 ar gument 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.
P ro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must ther efore 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
l ikewise does not comply with the rules, A the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party3

from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. @ T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), wher e 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 38. 9(a), 42.3(b)(c). PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 1s t day of October , 20 15

.