# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00799

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B.R.W. , a Child From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 11037 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 1, 2020
DI SMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION In this child support enforcement case, Appellant D.M.W. appeals from the trial court’s order holding Appellant in contempt for fa ilure to pay child support and awarding Appellee back child support and interest. Appellant, who is not an attorney, is representing himself in this appeal. Because Appellant twice failed to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Pro cedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
A PPELLANT ’ S O RIGINAL B RIEF After D.M.W. filed his original brief, o n February 21, 2020, we advised him that his brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. We advised D.M.W. that his brief omitted the following:04

- 19

- 0079 9

- CV

- 2

- • Table of Contents (that complies with the Rules),

• Index of Authorities,

• Statement of Facts (that complies with the Rules),

• Summary of the Argument,

• Argument,

• an Appendix (that complies with the Rules), or

• Certificate of Compliance. See id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We also advised D.M.W. that his brief had these additional defects :

• No part of the brief contains any citations to the record. Contra id. R. 38.1(g) (“The statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); id. R. 38.1(i) (“The brief must contain .

. . appropriate citations .

. . to the record.”).

• The portio ns of the brief that may be construed as a statement of facts recite alleged facts and complaints, but the brief does not state how the trial court erred or present any legal arguments, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record, to present a ny legal basis for this court to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Contra T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i).

• The brief does not recite the standard of review and it contains no citations to statutes, rules, or case law. Contra id. (requiring “appropriate cita tions to authorities”). We advised D.M.W. that his brief did not present anything for appellate review , and we struck his brief. We ordered D.M.W. to file an amended brief that correct ed all the violations listed above and fully compl ied with the applic able rules. See, e.g. , id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We warned D.M.W. that i f the amended brief d id not comply with our February 21, 2020

o rder, we could “strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to fil e a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely file a brief).
A PPELLANT ’ S A MENDED B RIEF D.M.W. timely filed an amended brief , but it d oes not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. Like the original brief, no part of the brief contains any citations to the record. Contra id.
R. 38.1(g) (“The statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); id. R. 38.1(i)04

- 19

- 0079 9

- CV

- 3

- (“The brief must contain .

. . appropriate citations .

. . to the record.”). The amended brief recites alleged facts and complaints, argues the trial court should not have awarded as much child support as it di d, and assert s ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The brief includes some citations to civil rules, i.e., T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 296, 324, 329b, but the brief does not explain how the rules apply , how the trial court violated any rule, or otherwise present “clear and concise arguments for the contentions made.” Contra T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. Throughout the brief, D.M.W. recites conclusory complaints, but the brief does not present clear and concise arguments, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record, for this court to reverse the trial court’s judgment , c ontra id. , and we may not create D.M.W. ’s arguments for him, see Meyer v. State , 310 S.W.3d 24, 26 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (“ We do not, and cannot, create argum ents for parti es

— we are neither the appellant’s nor the appellee’ s advocate. ”).
D.M.W. ’s amended brief does not present anything for appellate review.
C ONCLUSION D.M.W. has twice failed to submit a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Pr ocedure. Even with his amended brief, D.M.W. has presented nothing for this court to review. We strike D.M.W. ’s amended brief, prohibit him from filing another, and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.4, 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c).
PER CURIAM