Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01435-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.B. AND B.B., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-18314

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Appellee has filed a motion to strike appellant’s corrected brief and to dismiss 

this appeal from the trial court’s order confirming a non-agreed child support review 

order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 233.027(a)(1). Appellee argues, in part, that the 

corrected brief, filed after the Court informed appellant his original brief failed to 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 and 38.1, is 

deficient and presents nothing for review. Although more than ten days have passed 

since the motion was filed, appellant has not filed a response. 

Appellant is representing himself. The corrected brief he filed is the same 

brief he originally filed but includes a “note on efile” that states:
–2–

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS SCANNABLE AND SEARCHABLE 

WITH EXHIBITS/APPENDIXES [sic] BROKEN OUT. ALL THAT 

IS REQUIRED OF A PRO-SE APPELLANT. RULE 38 

REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PRO SE, AND 

THEREFORE THIS BRIEF IS COMPLETE AND COMPLIANT.1

Appellant is incorrect. As we stated in Bolling v. Farmers Branch 

Independent School District, “[t]he right of self-representation (or being what is 

commonly called a pro se litigant) carries with it the responsibility to adhere to our 

rules of evidence and procedure, including our appellate rules of procedure if the 

party chooses to represent himself at the appeal level.” 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 

One of the requirements of our rules of appellate procedure is that an 

appellant’s brief must state concisely the complaint the appellant has; provide 

understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why the complaint has legal and 

factual merit; and be supported by relevant legal authorities. See id. (citing TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i)). A brief that fails to comply with these requirements presents 

nothing for review. See id. at 896.

Appellant’s corrected brief asserts error in the calculation of his child support 

obligation and in the support start date but, as we noted in our letter informing him 

 

1

The note accompanying appellant’s corrected brief further stated: “ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS 

A COURT REPORTER RECORD AVAILABLE. [THE REPORTER] HAS NOT AND WILL NOT 

RESPOND TO ARRANGEMENT REQUESTS.” This portion of the note appears to be in response to the

Court’s January 29, 2020 order submitting the appeal without the reporter’s record after the reporter 

informed the Court appellant had not paid for the record. Based on our disposition of the appeal, 

reconsideration of our January 29th order is unnecessary. 
–3–

the brief was deficient, provides no supporting argument or legal authorities from 

which we can determine the merits of the complaints. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). 

Accordingly, it presents nothing for review. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896.

Our letter informing appellant his brief was deficient directed him to file a

corrected brief that complies with the briefing requirements of the rules of appellate 

procedure and cautioned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his appeal

without further notice. Rather than filing a compliant brief, appellant filed the same 

brief we had deemed deficient, concluding on his own that the briefing requirements 

do not apply to pro se litigants. Although appellee’s motion to dismiss is based, in 

part, on appellant’s failure to file a compliant brief, appellant has not responded to 

the motion nor has he attempted to file a second corrected brief that conforms with 

the appellate rules. Accordingly, on the brief and circumstances before us, we grant 

appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

191435f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF C.B. AND 

B.B., CHILDREN 

No. 05-19-01435-CV 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-18314.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg, Justices Bridges and 

Carlyle participating.

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

We ORDER that appellee Shelley Renfro Beeson recover her costs, if any, of 

this appeal from appellant Tyler Gregory Beeson.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of April 2020.