NUMBER 13-15-00262-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 267th 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 an order stating the brief contained numerous 

formal defects and that the case has not been properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.9. Under the authority of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) and (b), the 

Court struck appellant’s brief, ordered appellant to file an amended brief in compliance 

with Rule 38.1 within fifteen days from the date of the order, 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 dismiss 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 id. 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 argument 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. 

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). 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 

likewise does not comply with the rules, Athe court may strike the brief, prohibit the party 
3

from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.@ TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.9(a). 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.

Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 

42.3(b)(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

1st day of October, 2015.