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, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This is an appeal from a judgment of poss ession in a forcible detainer action. Appellant, representing herself, filed a brief that failed, in part, to include citations to authorities and the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). She was notified by letter of the deficiencies and, as dir ected 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, appe llee has filed a motion for sanctions under–2– Texas Rule of Appella te 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 requireme nts of our rules of a ppellate procedure. Moreno v. Silva , 316 S.W.3d 815, 817 (Tex. App.—Da llas 2010, pet. denied). Our appellate rules have specific briefing requirements to ensure the brief acquaints the court with the facts and issu es in a case and presents ar gument that enables the court to decide the case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38, 38.9; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. , 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex . App.—Dallas 2010, no pe t.). 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 comp laint has merit; and, (3) application of relevant legal authorities w ith appropriate citations. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 ci tations 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, alth ough given more than ten days to respond.–3– listing ten different authorities, see T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 limita tions period for adverse possession, is contained in the facts and argument sections. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 16.024. Our letter informing appellant of the deficiencies in her original brief cautioned her that the appeal was subject to di smissal if she failed to file a compliant brief. Although we decline to grant sanctions as reques ted 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. Bu r ns, 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.