NUMBER 13-16-00200-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

GARY OBLETON, Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA GUZMAN, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Gary Obleton, attempts to appeal a judgment of dismissal rendered 

against him in Chapter 14 litigation. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 

14.001-.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Proceeding pro se, appellant provided 

this Court with his brief in this cause on July 27, 2016 and a supplemental brief on August 
2

3, 2016. By letter issued on August 30, 2016, the Clerk of the Court informed appellant 

that his brief failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 9.5. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 38.1. We directed appellant to forward an amended brief to this 

Court within ten days from the date of this letter. Appellant did not respond to this 

directive. On September 15, 2016, this Court again notified appellant that his brief was 

not in compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 9.5 and advised 

appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days 

from receipt of this Court’s notice. Appellant has not subsequently filed an amended 

brief, but has instead filed several motions requesting the appointment of counsel. 

We are to construe the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet 

liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely 

necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. MexTex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–

617 (Tex. 1997). The appellate rules expressly require us to construe briefing rules 

liberally. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. In accordance with this directive, we construe 

appellate briefs reasonably so as to preserve the right to appellate review. El Paso Nat. 

Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999). Nevertheless, litigants are 

required to substantially comply with the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; 

Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 

1999, no pet.).

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they 

must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. 
3

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A pro se litigant is required to properly present his case 

to both the trial and appellate courts. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. Otherwise, pro se 

litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over those parties who are represented 

by counsel. See id. Therefore, we do not make allowances or apply different standards

when a case is presented by a litigant acting without the advice of counsel. See id.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and 

organization for an appellant's brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. An appellate brief is 

“meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will 

enable the court to decide the case . . . .” Id. R. 38.9. Therefore, an appellant's brief 

must contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and to the record.” Id. R. 38.1(i). This requirement is not satisfied 

by merely uttering brief conclusory statements unsupported by legal citations. Sweed v. 

City of El Paso, 195 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). A brief must 

explain how the law that is cited is applicable to the facts of the case. Hernandez v. 

Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); San Saba Energy, 

L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); 

Plummer v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied); 

Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 

It is the appellant's burden to discuss his assertions of error, and “we have no duty—or 

even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to 

determine whether there was error.” Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d at 466; see 2218 Bryan 
4

Street, Ltd. v. City of Dallas, 175 S.W.3d 58, (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).

When an appellant's brief fails to contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions 

made with appropriate citations to authorities, the appellate court is not responsible for 

doing the legal research that might support a party's contentions. Bolling v. Farmers 

Branch Indep. School Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). If 

we were to do so, we would be abandoning our role as judges and assuming the role of 

advocate for that party. Id.

If the appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly 

violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.9(a); see id. R. 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or 

dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without 

allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”). A 

reasonable time is given to an appellant when he is provided with an opportunity to amend 

his brief. See Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 

(Tex. 1994). If the appellant files another brief that does not comply with the rules of 

appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing 

another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to 

file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. R. 

38.8(a).

In the instant case, appellant filed a brief that did not meet the requirements of the 

appellate rules in form or in substance. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant and 
5

gave him a reasonable time to amend his brief. We strike appellant’s non-conforming 

brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a 

brief. See id. R. 38.9(a). We order the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

PROSECUTION. See id. R. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c); Johnson v. Dallas Hous. Auth., 

179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). Appellee’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

1st day of December, 2016.