1 

## NO. 12

- 22

- 00030

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ANGELENA DENTIS BAI Z

E

, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Angelena Dentis Bai ze, acting pro se, filed a petition for permissive appeal. We deny the petition.

S T ANDARD OF R EVIEW Unless a statute specifically authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments

. Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross , 698 S.W. 2d 363, 365 (Tex. 1985)

. Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code designates civil orders that may be appealed on an interlocutory basis, and it is strict ly construed. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2020); Bal ly Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001)

. Section 51.014(d) permits an interlocutory appeal of an otherwise unappealable order upon the trial court ’ s certification of the st atutory requirements, that is, the order involves a controlling qu estion of law on which there is substantial gro und for
disa greement and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate resolution of the

case. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(d)

. A court of appeals has discretion to

accep t or refuse to hear a permissive appeal

. Id

. § 51.014(f)

. The scope of a permissive a ppeal is limited to consideration of the controlling issues identifie d in the trial court ’ s order. See Tex.2 Windstorm Ins. Ass ’ n v. Jones , 512 S.W.3d 545, 552 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 1st Di st.] 2016, no pet.) (citing CM H Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) ).

A NALYSIS Section 51.014 (d) requires a trial court order that in cludes both the order to be appealed
and w ritten permission to appeal the order. Colvin v. B. S pencer & Ass oc ., P.C. , No. 01

- 15

- 00247

- C V , 2015 WL 2228728, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] Ma y 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) ; see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 5 1.014(d) ; see also T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 28.3(a) ( “ When a trial court has per mitted an appeal from an interlocutory ord er that would not otherwise be appealable, a party seeking to appeal must petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal ” )

. No such or der has been provided to this Court. Additionally , a petition for perm issive appeal must

(1) contain the infor mation required by Rule 25.1(d) to be included in a notice of appeal; (2) attach a copy of the order from which appeal is sought; (3) contain a table of contents, index of authorities, issues presented, and a statem ent of facts; and (4) argue clearly and c oncisely why the order to be appeal ed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinio n and how an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28 .3 (e)

. On February 15, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified Baize that her petition failed to comply with these requiremen ts , but Baize did not file an amended petition to
correct the defects. Impor tantly, Baize ’ s petition fails to co n tain clear and concise arguments to enable this Court to evaluate the merits of any controlling questions of law appropriately before

us. See id .; see also Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Guerra , No. 13

- 16

- 00628

- CV, 2017 WL 9 29485, at *1 (Tex . App.

— Corpus Christi Ma r. 9, 2017, no pet. ) (mem. op.). Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rul es of procedure ; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfai r advantage over parties represented by

c ounsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 2 665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. Accordingly, Baize has not met the
stric t requirements for a permissive appeal.

D IS P OSITION
F or the reasons express ed above , we deny Baize ’ s petition for permissive appeal.3 Opinion de livered March 9, 2022. Panel con sisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.4 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 9 , 2022

NO. 12

- 22

- 00030

- CV

ANGELENA DENTIS BAIZE , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law
of Smith County, Texas

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on Appellant ’ s pet i ti on for p ermissive appeal ; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this C ourt that the peti ti on should be
denied

. It is ther efore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
the petition for permissive appeal be, and the same is, hereby denied ; and that this decision be
certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Pa ne l consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.