Court Opinion

ID: 9368538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-04 19:09:07.369946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.986549
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00203-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ ESCAMILLA,                                                Appellant,

                                           v.

RICARDO CADENA,                                                              Appellee.

                    On appeal from the 93rd District Court
                         of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                                      ORDER
    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva
                          Order Per Curiam

      This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motions for leave to file amended

brief. On December 20, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his brief was

received but that it did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.4(h); 38.8(b)(2), (3).On January 3, 2023, appellant filed an amended brief,
and the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his amended brief also did not comply.

Upon review of appellant’s amended brief, we find that the brief contains numerous formal

defects, and that the case has not been properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. In

particular, the brief does not conform to rule 38.1(a) and (i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (i).

       Accordingly, appellant’s motions for leave to file a brief are denied, and, under the

authority of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) and (b), we order appellant to

amend or redraw the brief to conform to the rule within thirty days from the date of this

Order. If the new brief is filed in compliance with this order, no motion for leave shall be

required. Furthermore, appellant is hereby notified that if another brief does not comply,

it may be stricken, and appellant may be prohibited from filing another brief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. In that circumstance, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution and appellant’s failure to comply with this Court’s directive and the appellate

rules. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

                                                         PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of January, 2023.

                                               2