1

NO. 12-22-00030-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANGELENA DENTIS BAIZE, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Angelena Dentis Baize, acting pro se, filed a petition for permissive appeal. We deny the 

petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 strictly construed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2020); Bally 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 statutory requirements, that is, the 

order involves a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for 

disagreement and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate resolution of the 

case. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d). A court of appeals has discretion to 

accept or refuse to hear a permissive appeal. Id. § 51.014(f). The scope of a permissive appeal is 

limited to consideration of the controlling issues identified 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 Dist.] 2016, no 

pet.) (citing CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011)).

ANALYSIS

Section 51.014(d) requires a trial court order that includes both the order to be appealed 

and written permission to appeal the order. Colvin v. B. Spencer & Assoc., P.C., No. 01-15-

00247-CV, 2015 WL 2228728, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 12, 2015, no pet.) 

(mem. op.) (per curiam); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 28.3(a) (“When a trial court has permitted an appeal from an interlocutory order that 

would not otherwise be appealable, a party seeking to appeal must petition the court of appeals 

for permission to appeal”). No such order has been provided to this Court. Additionally, a

petition for permissive appeal must 

(1) contain the information 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 statement of facts; and

(4) argue clearly and concisely why the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law 

as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and how an immediate appeal 

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e). On February 15, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified Baize that her 

petition failed to comply with these requirements, but Baize did not file an amended petition to 

correct the defects. Importantly, Baize’s petition fails to contain 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 929485, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Pro se litigants are held to the 

same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; 

otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by 

counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 

n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Baize has not met the 

strict requirements for a permissive appeal.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons expressed above, we deny Baize’s petition for permissive appeal.
3

Opinion delivered March 9, 2022.

Panel consisted 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 petition for permissive 

appeal; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the petition should be 

denied.

It is therefore 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. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.