## In the Court of Appea ls Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Wort h

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00020

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. D213 -E- 16934

- 20

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### E X PARTE 

### D.K.2 MEMORANDUM OPINION I . I ntroduction A p p e l l a n t D.K., appearing pro se, appeals

— for the second time

— from the trial
court ’ s expunction order. In her first appeal, A ppellant argue d that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her a hearing and by granting only a partial expu nction because the expuncti on order drafted by the State omitted two respondents

— the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Local News Only. 1 T here, we affirmed in part , reversed in part, and rem anded the case to the trial court for th e sole purpose of holdin g a hearing to determine wh ether Local News Only qualifies as a n agency that shou ld be added to the expunction order. 2 On rem and, the trial co urt hel d a hearing as instructed and found that “ Local New [s] Only is not an agency or entity
t hat should be added to the expun ction order in this case. ” App ellant now appeals the trial co urt ’ s addit ional finding. 3 We will af firm.

1 See generally Ex part e D.K. , No. 02

- 20

- 00304

- CV , 2021 WL 3205057 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth, July 29, 2021 , no pet.) ( mem. op .).

2 Id. a t *5.

3 I n her b rief, Appellant does not set forth a list of numbered issues , an d she appears to attempt to rehash certain issues

— such as the omission of the FBI from the expunction order ’ s l ist of r espondents

— that were already ad dressed in her pr evious app eal

. To the ex tent Appellant ’ s brief raises any issues that were a lready ad dressed in her prior appea l, we consider our p rev ious opin ion to be the law of the case a nd decline to revisit t hose matters . See Estate of Tillotson , 647 S.W.3d 447 , 454

– 55 (Tex. A pp.
— Texarkana 2 022, pet. denied ).3 II. Background In 2017, Appellant was arrested in Grapevine and charged with criminal trespass. Appellant ’ s charge was quashed or dismiss ed because she completed a statutory pretrial intervention program

. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. §§ 76.001(4), 76.011. In 2020, Appellant fil ed a petition for expunctio n of her criminal records , which she later amended to in clude a list of law enforcem ent agen cies and public entities that she had reason to believe had files or records related to her arrest and that were subject to expunction

. Among the agencies and entities that she listed, Appellant included the FBI and Local News Only. In Septe mber 2020, the trial court entered an order granting the expunct ion , but the list of respondents included in the order
conta ined neit her the FBI nor Local News Only

. App ellant appealed from the expunction order, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denyi ng her a hearing and by omit ting the FBI and Local News Only from the list of respon dents. 4 On appeal, we h eld that the trial court did not err in omitting the FBI from the li st of respondents , but we rem anded the case to the trial court to determine wheth er Local News Only qualifies as a n agency that shou ld be added to the expunction ord er . 5

4 Ex part e D.K. , 2021 WL 3205057 , at *1

. 5 Id. at * 3

– 5.4 On remand, the trial c ourt h eld a hearing as instructed and ente red a written finding that “ Local New[s] Only is not an ag ency or entity that should be added to the

ex punction order in this case. ” Th is second appeal followed. III. Discuss ion On appeal , Appe llant contends tha t the trial c ourt erred by finding that Local News Only is not an agency tha t should be added to the expunction order. 6 In response, t he State o f T exas asserts that the trial court ’ s fi ndi ng shou ld be affirmed because Appe llant has fa iled to pro vide a re porter ’ s record or to file a brief complying wi th the Te xas Rules of Appellate Procedure and because the trial court complied with this cou rt ’ s previ ous remand order. A. Di d Appellant waiv e all potenti al issues thro ugh inad equate briefing? A pro se litigant is held to the same standar ds as a licensed attorney and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Hughes v. Armadillo Prop. for Li na Roberts , No. 03

- 15

- 00698

- CV, 2016 WL 5349380, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sep. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); Robb v. Horizon Comm. Improvem ent Ass ’ n, Inc. , 417 S.W.3d 585, 590 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2013, no pet.). We re t his not the case , pro se lit i gants woul d be given an unfair advantage over par ties represented by counsel

. Hughes , 2016 WL 5349380 , at *2; Robb , 417 S.W.3d at 590.

6 As previously note d, Appellant did not include a list of number ed issues in her b rief

. See su pra not e 3.5 Amon g the rules of procedure with which a litigant

— ev en one acti ng pro se
— must comply are th ose setting forth th e requir em ents for appellate briefs. See Tex. R. App . P. 38.1

– 38.3. O f particular re levance here, a n appellant ’ s brief must , among other t hings, “state concisely all issues or points presented for review , ” contain a statement of pertinent facts “ supporte d by reco rd reference s , ” “contain a clear and concise argum ent for the contentions mad e, with appropriate citations to authorities and to th e record , ” and , in a civil case , include an appendix. Tex. R
. App. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i) , (k)

. Appellant ’ s brief i s defect ive in many res pects. It does not con cisely

— or cle arly

— s tate the issues pr esented for review. It contains no record references 7 or ap p endix and cites no relevant case law. Based on these briefing deficiencies, we hold that Appellant waived any potential appell ate issues

. See Tex. R. App . P. 38.1 ; see also McKinnon v. Wallin , No. 03

- 17

- 00592

- CV, 2018 WL 3849399, at *2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 14, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that pr o se a ppellant had waived his issues by inadequate briefing ); Hughes , 2 016 WL 5349 380, at *2 (same )

.

7 In her b rief , Appellant states t hat “ [t]he Judicial distric t Court does not have record references. Therefore, plaintiff is unable to state facts with records of re ferences as it is sta ted on Rule 38 .1 of Texas App ellate procedure. Plaintiff is only provided with copies of the docum en ts with filin g dates n umbers. ” Appel lan t ’ s meani ng is uncle ar as the clerk ’ s record filed with the court in cluded page numbers cl early visible in the bottom righth and corner. In any event, Appellant , de spite acting pro se, was required to pro vide citations to th e record to supp ort her factual st atements and arguments , and the onus was on her to ensure that such cita t ions were included in her brief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g), (i); Hughes , 2016 WL 5349380 , at *2; Robb , 417 S.W.3d at 590

.6 B. Is Appella nt ’ s issue reviewable w ithout a r eporter ’ s record? Even if we were to set aside Appellant ’ s briefing defects, we must still overr ule Appellant ’ s sole issue because it is not reviewa ble without a reporter ’ s recor d. See Brown v. State , 632 S.W.3d 75, 80 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 202 0, no pet.). Under the rules of appellate procedure, if the clerk ’ s record has been filed , but the court reporter has not filed a reporter ’ s record because the appellant failed to either reque st or pay for it , an appell ate court may

— after first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure

— decide those issues that do not require a reporter ’ s record for a decision. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c) ; Bailey v . Bobay , No. 02

- 15

- 00247

- CV, 2016 WL 701092 4, at * 1 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; Caldwell v. Goodfellow Caldwell , No. 03

- 10

- 00292

- CV, 2012 WL 5476848, at *1 (Te x. App.

— Austin Nov. 8, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

. In this case, while the clerk ’ s record has been filed, no reporter ’ s r ecord has been filed, and Appellant has been given notice and a reas onable opportunity to cure. 8 Accordingly, we will address

8 On March 21, 2022, af ter the court repor ter resp onsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal informed t he court that Appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we sent a letter to Appellant advising her that unless she provided proof of payment by March 3 1, 2022, we may consider and decide those issues that do not require a report er’s record for a decision. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Because Appellant failed to provide proof of payment by the deadline, we sent her another letter dated April 5, 2022, noti fying he r that “[b]ecause Appellant(s) failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, the court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision.” I d. Base d on o ur cor responde nce w ith Appe llant, we hold that she was given sufficient notice of th e record d eficien cy and a r easonable opportunity to cure. See id. ; In the Interest of M.D.G. , 527 S.W.3d 299, 303

– 04 (Tex. App.

— El Paso7 only those issues not requiring the reporter ’ s record. See Caldwell , 2012 WL 5476848, at * 1 (citing Off ice of Pub. Ut il. Counsel v . Public Util. Comm ’ n , 878 S.W.2d 598, 599

– 600 (Tex. 1994) )

. The sole issue 9 raised in Appellant ’ s brief is whether the trial cour t erred in finding that Local News Only is not an agency that should be added to the expunction ord er. Yet, i n t he absence of a reporter ’ s record, we must presume that the hearing was properly conducted and that the trial court was presented with sufficient e vidence to make it s finding

. See Hong Yan Li v. Daylong , No. 03

- 14

- 00664

- CV, 20 16 WL 232130, at *2 (Tex. A pp.
— Austin Jan. 13, 2016, no pet.) (mem . op.) (“[Appellant] failed to cause a reporter ’ s record of the dismissal and sanctions proceeding to be filed. We must therefore presume that the proceeding was properly conducted and that the trial court was present ed with sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings.”); Sanadco Inc. v. Hegar , No. 03

- 14

- 00771

- CV, 2015 WL 4072091, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin July 3, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Without a reporter ’ s record, we have no way to determine what evidence, i f a ny, was adduced at the hearing and, the refore, whether the trial court abused its discretion. We therefore assume the underlying proceeding was properly conducted and that sufficient 2017, no pet.) (holding that a ppella nt was given adequa te notic e of no reporter ’ s record and a reasonable opportunity to cure where the c ourt notified a ppellant that his appeal would be submitted on the clerk ’ s record alone if he did not request the reporter ’ s record and make arrangements to pay for it)

. 9 See supra no tes 3, 6.8 evidence supported the trial court ’ s decisi on.” ( footn ote and citat ion s o mitted)) ; see also Ganesan v. Vallabhaneni , 96 S.W.3d 345, 352 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2002, pet. denied) (“Because [appellant] failed to file a complete reporter ’ s record or agreed statement of the facts, his factual and legal suff iciency challenges must fai l.” )

. Assuming , as we must, that that the trial court was presented with sufficient

e vidence to make it s finding that Local News Only is not an agency that should be added to the expunction order, we overrule Appellant ’ s sole is sue. IV. Conclusion Having o v erruled Appellant ’ s sole issue, we affirm the trial court ’ s exp unction order.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Delivered: October 27, 2022