NUMBER 13-22-00514-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

CRISTINA REYNA, Appellant,

v.

R & N PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This cause is before this Court on appellee R&N Properties, LLC’s second 

amended opposed motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2022, appellant Cristina Reyna 

filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The 

brief, filed prior to the clerk’s record, failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of 
2

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4., 9.5, 38.1. 

Appellant subsequently filed an amended brief on January 27, 2023. On January 

31, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that her brief was untimely and failed 

to comply with Rules 9.4(h), (i)(3), and (j)(1) and 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter along with a motion 

for leave to file the brief.

On February 1, 2023, appellant filed a letter with the Court regarding the timeliness 

of her appeal but did not file an amended brief correcting the errors as instructed in this 

Court’s January 31, 2023 letter. On February 6, 2023, this Court sent appellant a notice 

regarding her amended brief, reiterating that appellant’s amended brief still did not comply 

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and providing greater detail regarding the 

defects, specifically explaining that the brief contained no appendix, no certificate of 

compliance, was not text-searchable, and generally contained no discernible issues or 

argument. See id. The letter further instructed appellant to file an amended brief 

correcting the defects, if it could be done. Appellant filed a second amended brief on 

February 10, 2023 and was notified the same day that the brief still did not comply with 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was given ten days to file an amended 

brief correcting the errors, if it could be done. Appellant was also notified that if the Court 

received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant 
3

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

circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a), 

42.3(b), (c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

On February 17, 2023, appellant filed a “motion to leave to amend,” which lacked 

a certificate of conference, and was notified of the defect. See id. 10.1(a)(5). Appellant 

did not file a separate brief correcting the defects as previously instructed to do. Appellee 

filed its second amended opposed motion to dismiss on March 3, 2023. Appellant 

subsequently filed an amended motion for leave to amend on the same day. Appellant’s 

March 3, 2023 filing does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and 

fails to adequately present argument for this Court’s review. On March 13, 2023, appellant 

filed her opposition to appellee’s motion to dismiss.

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. 

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). 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). If the appellant does not file a brief 

that complies 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. Id. 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.
4

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s second amended motion to dismiss, we strike 

appellant’s non-conforming brief, and order the appeal dismissed for want of 

prosecution.1 See id. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c). 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

16th day of March, 2023. 

1 Any pending motions in this matter are dismissed as moot.