Court Opinion

ID: 9382319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 07:08:53.234984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.605721
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued March 23, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-22-00777-CV
                             ———————————
             IN THE INTEREST OF C.H. AND M.H., CHILDREN

                    On Appeal from the 312th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 2016-37371

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, mother, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s order,

entered after a bench trial, terminating her parental rights to her minor children, C.H.

and M.H., in the private termination suit of appellee, father.

      We dismiss the appeal.
      On February 10, 2023, mother filed her appellant’s brief with this Court. In a

February 23, 2023 order, we notified mother that her appellant’s brief did not comply

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 because it did not “state concisely the

nature of the case,” “the course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of

the case,” “supported by record refences”; “include a statement explaining why oral

argument should or should not be permitted”; “state concisely all issues or points

presented for review”; “state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to

the issues or points presented,” “supported by record references”; “contain a

succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the

brief”; “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”; “contain a short conclusion

that clearly state[d] the nature of the relief sought”; and include an appropriate

appendix.1 (Internal quotations omitted.) See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (e), (f), (g),

(h), (i), (j), (k); Garrett v. Lee, No. 01-21-00498-CV, 2021 WL 5702177, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (appellant’s brief

does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 where it does not

1
      A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney and must comply
      with all applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Tyurin v. Hirsch & Westheimer,
      P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
      Dist.] Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Holz v. United States of Am. Corp., No.
      05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL 6555024, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014,
      no pet.) (mem. op.) (pro se litigant must adhere to Texas Rules of Appellate
      Procedure); see also Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005).

                                            2
“state concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of proceedings, and the trial

court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record refences”; “state concisely all

issues or points presented for review”; “state concisely and without argument the

facts pertinent to the issues or points presented,” “supported by record references”;

“contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body

of the brief”; “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”; and “contain a short

conclusion that clearly state[d] the nature of the relief sought” (internal quotations

omitted)); Petty v. Petty, No. 13-14-00051-CV, 2014 WL 5500459, at *1–2 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 30, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (appellant’s

brief fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 where it presents

“no cognizable or discernable issues” and contains “no coherent argument supported

by appropriate citations”); see also M&E Endeavors LLC v. Air Voice Wireless LLC,

Nos. 01-18-00852-CV, 01-19-00180-CV, 2020 WL 5047902, at *7 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellate briefing

requirements are mandatory); Schied v. Merritt, No. 01-15-00466-CV, 2016 WL

3751619, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control required contents and organization of

appellant’s brief).

                                          3
      Our February 23, 2023 order also struck mother’s February 10, 2023

appellant’s brief and ordered her to file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by March 15, 2023. We informed

mother that if she filed a corrected appellant’s brief that did not comply with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we would strike her corrected brief, prohibit

her from filing another, proceed as if she had failed to file a brief, and dismiss her

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also

Garrett, 2021 WL 5702177, at *1–3; Tucker v. Fort Worth & W. R.R., No.

02-19-00221-CV, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2020,

pet. denied) (mem. op.) (striking amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of

prosecution where appellant ordered to file amended brief but amended brief still

did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin v. Hirsch &

Westheimer, P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Petty, 2014 WL

5500459, at *1–2 (striking appellant’s amended brief and dismissing appeal because

of failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1). We also

informed mother that if she failed to timely file her corrected brief, we would dismiss

her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f). Mother did not timely file

her corrected appellant’s brief.

                                          4
      Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f); Bennett v. Jenkins, No. 01-21-00557-CV, 2022 WL

3268531, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (after striking appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure and appellant failed to timely file corrected brief, dismissing

appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution); see also Averett v. Huffman Indep. Sch.

Dist., No. 01-19-00482-CV, 2020 WL 717543, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Feb. 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to file a brief, we

may dismiss h[er] appeal for want of prosecution.”). We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.

                                          5