Court Opinion

ID: 9896458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-12 08:12:44.111546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:01.781693
License: Public Domain

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 7, 2023

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-23-00457-CV

                         ERIC MURDOCK, Appellant
                                         V.
               JACQUELINE MARIE PATTERSON, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 461st District Court
                           Brazoria County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 107857-F

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal from a decree of divorce signed June 29, 2023. On
September 8, 2023, appellant tendered a brief that did not comply with the briefing
requirements set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. The brief was
returned to appellant for correction. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) (permitting court to
return nonconforming documents for correction). Most significantly, appellant has
failed to make any legal arguments to support reversal of the judgment, and the
brief contains no citations to the record or to legal authorities. Tex. R. App. P.
38.1(h).

      Appellant provides no legal reason to set aside the judgment entered by the
trial court. While we are not unsympathetic to appellant’s position, a point of error
unsupported by citation of any legal authority presents nothing for the court to
review. See Richard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied). 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) (holding that litigants who represent themselves must comply with
procedures established by rules notwithstanding fact that they are not licensed
attorneys); Sedillo v. Campbell, 5 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Kanow v. Brownshadel, 691 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no writ).

      On September 26, 2023, we issued an order striking appellant’s brief and
ordered appellant to file a compliant brief within 10 days. We instructed appellant
that if appellant failed to file a compliant brief the appeal was subject to dismissal
without further notice for want of prosecution.

      Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 42.3(b).

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.

                                          2