Court Opinion

ID: 9370601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 12:09:16.814163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.708314
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                        February 8, 2023

                                      No. 04-22-00582-CV

   IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MARISSA VIVARES BONNET AND
         JAMES T. BONNET AND IN THE INTEREST OF T.J.B., A CHILD

                  From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                Trial Court No. 2016CI19887
                         Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER
        Appellant filed his brief on February 3, 2023. The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain:

       1.      an identity of parties and counsel;
       2.      a table of contents;
       3.      an index of authorities;
       4.      a statement of the case;
       5.      a brief statement of the issues presented, setting out what errors were allegedly
               committed by the trial court;
       6.      a statement of facts with record references;
       7.      a summary of the argument;
       8.      a legal argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record;
       9.      a prayer for relief; or
       10.     an appendix.

See id. R. 38.1(a)-(k). Additionally, the brief does not comply with Rules 9.4 or 9.5 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 9.4, 9.5. Specifically, the brief does not include a
certificate of compliance stating the number of words in the document. See id. R. 9.4(i)(3). The
brief also fails to include a certificate of service showing proof of service on the opposing party
or its counsel. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e).

       Although substantial compliance with Rule 38.1 is generally sufficient, this court may
order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See id.
R. 38.9(a). We conclude the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of
Rule 38.1.
        We therefore order appellant’s brief stricken and order appellant to file an amended
brief by March 10, 2023. The amended brief must correct the violations listed above and fully
comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. If the amended brief does not
comply with this order, we may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another brief, and
proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a)
(authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief). Even if we do not
strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we may find any issues raised by
appellant are waived due to inadequate briefing and overrule those issues. See, e.g., Marin Real
Estate Partners v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).

        We recognize appellant represents himself on appeal, i.e. he is acting pro se. However,
we caution appellant pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and
must comply with all applicable rules of procedure, including the rules governing appellate
briefs. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). We will not
apply different standards merely because an appeal is brought by a litigant acting without advice
of counsel. Id.

                                                      _________________________________
                                                      Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 8th day of February, 2023.

                                                      ___________________________________
                                                      MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court