In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

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

EX PARTE D.K.
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

Appellant D.K., appearing pro se, appeals—for the second time—from the trial 

court’s expunction order. In her first appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court 

abused its discretion by denying her a hearing and by granting only a partial 

expunction because the expunction order drafted by the State omitted two 

respondents—the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Local News Only.1 There, we 

affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court for the sole 

purpose of holding a hearing to determine whether Local News Only qualifies as an 

agency that should be added to the expunction order.2 On remand, the trial court held 

a hearing as instructed and found that “Local New[s] Only is not an agency or entity

that should be added to the expunction order in this case.” Appellant now appeals the 

trial court’s additional finding.3 We will affirm.

1

See generally Ex parte D.K., No. 02-20-00304-CV, 2021 WL 3205057 (Tex. 

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

2

Id. at *5.

3

In her brief, Appellant does not set forth a list of numbered issues, and she

appears to attempt to rehash certain issues—such as the omission of the FBI from the 

expunction order’s list of respondents—that were already addressed in her previous 

appeal. To the extent Appellant’s brief raises any issues that were already addressed in 

her prior appeal, we consider our previous opinion to be the law of the case and 

decline to revisit those matters. See Estate of Tillotson, 647 S.W.3d 447, 454–55 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2022, pet. denied).
3

II. Background

In 2017, Appellant was arrested in Grapevine and charged with criminal 

trespass. Appellant’s charge was quashed or dismissed because she completed a 

statutory pretrial intervention program. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 76.001(4), 

76.011.

In 2020, Appellant filed a petition for expunction of her criminal records, 

which she later amended to include a list of law enforcement agencies 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 September 2020, the trial court entered an 

order granting the expunction, but the list of respondents included in the order 

contained neither the FBI nor Local News Only.

Appellant appealed from the expunction order, arguing that the trial court 

abused its discretion by denying her a hearing and by omitting the FBI and Local 

News Only from the list of respondents.4 On appeal, we held that the trial court did 

not err in omitting the FBI from the list of respondents, but we remanded the case to 

the trial court to determine whether Local News Only qualifies as an agency that 

should be added to the expunction order.

5

4

Ex parte D.K., 2021 WL 3205057, at *1.

5

Id. at *3–5.
4

On remand, the trial court held a hearing as instructed and entered a written 

finding that “Local New[s] Only is not an agency or entity that should be added to the 

expunction order in this case.” This second appeal followed.

III. Discussion

On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by finding that Local 

News Only is not an agency that should be added to the expunction order.6 In 

response, the State of Texas asserts that the trial court’s finding should be affirmed 

because Appellant has failed to provide a reporter’s record or to file a brief complying 

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and because the trial court complied 

with this court’s previous remand order.

A. Did Appellant waive all potential issues through inadequate briefing?

A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney and must 

comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Hughes v. Armadillo Prop. for Lina 

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. Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 417 S.W.3d 

585, 590 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.). Were this not the case, pro se litigants

would be given an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel. Hughes, 

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

6

As previously noted, Appellant did not include a list of numbered issues in her 

brief. See supra note 3.
5

Among the rules of procedure with which a litigant—even one acting pro se—

must comply are those setting forth the requirements for appellate briefs. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.1–38.3. Of particular relevance here, an appellant’s brief must, among 

other things, “state concisely all issues or points presented for review,” contain a 

statement of pertinent facts “supported by record references,” “contain a clear and 

concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities 

and to the record,” and, in a civil case, include an appendix. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f),

(g), (i), (k).

Appellant’s brief is defective in many respects. It does not concisely—or 

clearly—state the issues presented for review. It contains no record references7 or

appendix and cites no relevant case law. Based on these briefing deficiencies, we hold 

that Appellant waived any potential appellate 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 pro se appellant had 

waived his issues by inadequate briefing); Hughes, 2016 WL 5349380, at *2 (same).

7

In her brief, Appellant states that “[t]he Judicial district Court does not have 

record references. Therefore, plaintiff is unable to state facts with records of 

references as it is stated on Rule 38.1 of Texas Appellate procedure. Plaintiff is only 

provided with copies of the documents with filing dates numbers.” Appellant’s 

meaning is unclear as the clerk’s record filed with the court included page numbers

clearly visible in the bottom righthand corner. In any event, Appellant, despite acting 

pro se, was required to provide citations to the record to support her factual 

statements and arguments, and the onus was on her to ensure that such citations 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 Appellant’s issue reviewable without a reporter’s record?

Even if we were to set aside Appellant’s briefing defects, we must still overrule 

Appellant’s sole issue because it is not reviewable without a reporter’s record. See

Brown v. State, 632 S.W.3d 75, 80 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, 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 request or pay for it, an appellate 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 7010924, 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 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 8, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In this case, while the 

clerk’s record has been filed, no reporter’s record has been filed, and Appellant has 

been given notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure.8 Accordingly, we will address 

8

On March 21, 2022, after the court reporter responsible for preparing the 

reporter’s record in this appeal informed the 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 31, 2022, we may consider 

and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’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, notifying her 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.” Id. Based on our correspondence with Appellant, we hold that

she was given sufficient notice of the record deficiency and a reasonable opportunity 

to cure. See id.; In the Interest of M.D.G., 527 S.W.3d 299, 303–04 (Tex. App.—El Paso 
7

only those issues not requiring the reporter’s record. See Caldwell, 2012 WL 5476848, 

at *1 (citing Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Public Util. Comm’n, 878 S.W.2d 598, 599–

600 (Tex. 1994)).

The sole issue9 raised in Appellant’s brief is whether the trial court erred in 

finding that Local News Only is not an agency that should be added to the 

expunction order. Yet, in the absence of a reporter’s record, we must presume that 

the hearing was properly conducted and that the trial court was presented with 

sufficient evidence to make its finding. See Hong Yan Li v. Daylong, No. 03-14-00664-

CV, 2016 WL 232130, at *2 (Tex. App.—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 presented 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, if any, was adduced at the 

hearing and, therefore, whether the trial court abused its discretion. We therefore 

assume the underlying proceeding was properly conducted and that sufficient 

2017, no pet.) (holding that appellant was given adequate notice of no reporter’s 

record and a reasonable opportunity to cure where the court notified appellant 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 notes 3, 6.
8

evidence supported the trial court’s decision.” (footnote and citations omitted)); 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 sufficiency challenges must fail.”).

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

evidence to make its finding that Local News Only is not an agency that should be 

added to the expunction order, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

IV. Conclusion

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s expunction 

order.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: October 27, 2022