A ffirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed March 20 , 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 23
- 00041
- CR ANTHONY YUMA DUNCAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20
- 75167
- P MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Nowell, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Nowell Anthony Yuma Duncan, pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting
him for failure to register as a sex offender . Appellant appears to argue he was not required to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of a sex offense in 1992.
B RIEFING R EQUIREMENTS An appellant’s brief must comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.1. After appellant filed his initial brief, this Court sent a letter to him. The letter informed appellant that his brief did not comply with rule 38.1 because it failed to i nclude an index of parties and counsel,– 2

–

index of authorities, statement of the case, and a summary of the argument; further, this Court informed appellant that the argument section of his brief did not cite to authorities or to the record. Although appella nt filed an amended brief, his amended brief also does not comply with rule 38.1. Rule 38.1 requires that a brief contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 38.1(i). The brief must include, among other things, appropriate citations to the applicable legal authorities and an explanation of how those authorities apply to the facts of the case at hand. Margetis v. State , No. 05

- 14

- 00898

- CR, 2015 WL 4600479, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 31, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Walder v. State , 85 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. App.

– Waco 2002, no pet.)). The briefing rules should be construed liberally and are “meant to acquaint
the court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable the court to decide the case.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.9. However, the failure to present argument or authorities in support of an assertion results in waiver of the issue. Margetis , 2015 WL 4600479, at *1 (citing State v. Gonzales , 855 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Delapaz v. State , 228 S.W.3d 183, 197 n.20 (Tex. App

. — Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd); Kiss v. State , 316 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. App

. — Dallas 2009, pet. ref'd) ) . A pro se litigant must compl y with the rules of procedure and is not to be granted any special treatment because he has asserted his pro se rights. Id. (citing Johnson v. State , 760 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (pro se litigant– 3

–

is held to same standards as licensed attorney and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure) )

. Appellant’s brief does not include an index of legal authorities and also does not include any citations to applicable legal authorities or any explanation about how any legal authorities apply to the facts of the case. While appellant purports to provide citations to the reporter’s record, the Court is not clear how he determined those citations. Further, although appellant’s brief references Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E, exhibits with those labe ls are not found in the record. We conclude appellant failed to present any argument that will enable this Court to decide the case , and he has waived any arguments he seeks to present.
M ODIFICATIONS TO J UDGMENT In a single cross

- issue, the State requests we modify the judgment to show appellant represented himself and was not represented by counsel at trial, appellant pleaded guilty rather than not guilty to the charged offense, and court costs of $ 301

. We may modify a trial court’ s written judgment if the necessary information to do so is contained in the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 ( Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’ d). The judgment incorrectly state s appellant was represented by counsel at trial and he pleaded guilty to the charged offense ; t he record shows appellant represented himself at trial and pleaded not guilty to the charged offense. Further, t he judgment– 4

–

assesses court costs of $286. However , the certified bill of costs shows the court costs were $301. We sustain the State’s cross issue.
C ONCLUSION We modify the trial court’s judgment to state appellant represented himself at trial, appellant pleaded not guilty, and court costs are $301. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

/Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE 230041f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b)– 5

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
ANTHONY YUMA DUNCAN, Appellant No. 05

- 23

- 00041

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20

- 75167

- P. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Partida

- Kipness and Smith participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Under the heading “Plea to Offense,” we DELETE the word “Guilty” and ADD the words “Not Guilty.” Under the heading “Attorney for Defendant,” we DELETE the words “Allan Fishburn, Bar # 07049110” and ADD the words “Pro Se.” Under the heading “Court Costs,” we DELETE the amount of $286 and ADD the amount of $301.
As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 20 th day of March , 2024

.