Court Opinion

ID: 9964182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 08:09:48.011579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:12.509580
License: Public Domain

In the
                 Court of Appeals
         Second Appellate District of Texas
                  at Fort Worth
              ___________________________
                   No. 02-22-00477-CV
              ___________________________

                 SHARON CHISM, Appellant

                               V.

ARLINGTON OAKS /SANDALWOOD MANAGEMENT AND TARRANT
                  ROOFING, Appellees

          On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3
                   Tarrant County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 2022-001687-3

           Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
           Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This appeal has been pending since November 30, 2022, when pro se

Appellant Sharon Chism filed her late notice of appeal. On December 2, 2022, we

informed Chism that her notice of appeal was untimely and requested a response

explaining the delay. Chism did not respond, so on January 26, 2023, we again

notified her of the issue regarding her late notice of appeal and requested that she

respond to explain the delay by February 6, 2023. On April 5, 2023—after Chism had

filed various nonconforming responses and also two motions to extend her response

deadline—we informed Chism that her appeal would continue.1

      After we received word that there was no reporter’s record in this case, we

informed Chism on May 12, 2023, that her appellant’s brief was due on June 12, 2023.

Chism proceeded to file four motions to extend that deadline, all of which we

granted. With the fourth extension, we informed Chism that her brief was due on

November 20, 2023, and that no further extensions would be granted.                 On

November 7, 2023, Chism asked for another extension, explaining that she had hired

an attorney who would need additional time to prepare her brief. We denied this

      1
        Through her various filings, Chism explained that her notice of appeal and
response to our January 26, 2023 letter had been untimely due to a miscalculation of
days following the final judgment in the trial court, the deadlines falling during the
holidays, her father’s health issues, and the fact that she had recently been physically
assaulted.

                                           2
extension request but informed Chism to have her attorney move for another

extension if it was needed.

      Chism (still proceeding pro se) then filed her appellant’s brief on November 27,

2023.2 On December 21, 2023, we informed Chism that her brief did not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and local rules in that it did not contain a

list of the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement

of the case, a statement regarding oral argument, the issues presented, a statement of

facts with record references, a summary of the argument, a clear and concise

argument with citations to legal authorities and the record, a prayer, an appendix, a

front cover, and a certificate of compliance. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. We requested

that Chism file an amended brief that complied with these rules by January 2, 2024,

and informed her that failing to do so could result in her brief being stricken and her

appeal being dismissed.

      Chism then filed two motions to extend the deadline for her amended brief and

explained that she had been in the process of moving and had lacked access to the

internet and electricity as necessary for filing her brief. We granted both motions,

extended her deadline to February 29, 2024, and informed her that further extensions

would be strongly disfavored. Chism never filed an amended brief.

      2
       Due to some technical difficulties in filing and receiving Chism’s brief, we
granted her leave to file her untimely brief.

                                            3
      An appellate court has the authority—on its own initiative and after giving ten

days’ notice—to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or because the appellant

has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a

notice from the appellate court clerk requiring a response or other action within a

specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC,

521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Chism has failed to

comply with the appellate rules and to respond to the directives of this court’s clerk

regarding the filing of her amended brief. See Tex. R. app. P. 42.3(c). For these

reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and because Chism failed to

comply with the appellate rules and directives of the clerk. See id.; In re A.A.A.,

No. 13-19-00260-CV, 2020 WL 7063690, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

Dec. 3, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                    /s/ Brian Walker

                                                    Brian Walker
                                                    Justice

Delivered: April 25, 2024

                                          4