DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 1, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00923-CV 

TAMILA CARROLL, Appellant 

V. 

DAVID MULLEN, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL 

LEE MULLEN, DECEASED, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05193-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

This is an appeal from a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action. 

Appellant, representing herself, filed a brief that failed, in part, to include citations 

to authorities and the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). She was notified 

by letter of the deficiencies and, as directed to do so, filed a corrected brief. 

Asserting, among other arguments, that the corrected brief also fails to include 

citations to authorities and the record, appellee has filed a motion for sanctions under 
 –2– 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 and to dismiss the appeal.1

 See id. 45 

(authorizing appellate court to award damages to prevailing party when appeal is 

frivolous). We grant the motion, in part. 

A party representing himself is held to the same standards as a licensed 

attorney and must comply with the requirements of our rules of appellate procedure. 

Moreno v. Silva, 316 S.W.3d 815, 817 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Our 

appellate rules have specific briefing requirements to ensure the brief acquaints the 

court with the facts and issues in a case and presents argument that enables the court 

to decide the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38, 38.9; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. 

Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). A brief must, 

among other requirements, include (1) a concise statement of the complaint 

presented for review along with pertinent facts supported by record references; (2) 

succinct and clear argument for why the complaint has merit; and, (3) application of 

relevant legal authorities with appropriate citations. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(f),(g),(i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Without proper briefing, we are unable 

to discharge our responsibility to review and properly dispose of the appeal, and 

dismissal of the appeal is warranted. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96. 

Appellant’s corrected brief contains no citations to the record in the statement 

of facts or anywhere else in the brief. And, although the brief includes an index 

1

 Appellant has not responded to the motion, although given more than ten days to respond. 
 –3– 

listing ten different authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), only a single, general 

reference to what appears to be Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 

16.024, concerning the three-year limitations period for adverse possession, is 

contained in the facts and argument sections. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 16.024. 

Our letter informing appellant of the deficiencies in her original brief 

cautioned her that the appeal was subject to dismissal if she failed to file a compliant 

brief. Although we decline to grant sanctions as requested by appellee, the amended 

brief is wholly deficient with respect to citations to the record and authorities and 

warrants otherwise granting appellee’s motion. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

 

210923F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TAMILA CARROLL, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00923-CV V. 

DAVID MULLEN, AS 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF SAMUEL LEE 

MULLEN, DECEASED, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05193-

A. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns, Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered June 1, 2022.