Court Opinion

ID: 9410436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 09:15:55.508293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.694581
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-22-00281-CR

                        EX PARTE ALLEN MICHAEL LEE

                            From the 85th District Court
                                Brazos County, Texas
                          Trial Court No. 22-001433-CV-85

                                      OPINION

       Allen Michael Lee is charged with one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child

and two counts of sexual assault of a child. Bail amounts were set at $400,000 in total for

the three charges. He has not been able to make bail. He filed a pre-trial application for

a writ of habeas corpus asking to either be released or have bail reduced to $15,000 total.

After a hearing, the trial court denied Lee’s application.

       In one issue, Lee contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying Lee’s

request for a bail/bond reduction. Specifically, he contends the initial bail set was

excessively high and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his application

without an explanation.

       In presenting error to this Court, an appellant’s brief must contain a clear and

concise argument of the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and

to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Neville v. State, 622 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2020, no pet.). That has not occurred in this case. In the “Standard of Review” and

“Applicable Law” sections of his brief, Lee cites to the general, applicable case law and

statutes. However, in his “Argument” section, where appropriate citations must be

included, Lee cites to five cases to support the two sub-arguments to his issue. Only three

of those five cases are published. None of the three published cases cited actually exist

in the Southwest Reporter. Each citation provides the reader a jump-cite into the body of

a different case that has nothing to do with the propositions cited by Lee. Two of the

citations take the reader to cases from Missouri. As the State points out, even Texas cases

with the same names as those cited by Lee do not correspond with the propositions relied

upon. 1 Further, as again noted by the State, the brief is devoid of any citations to the

1
    The text of the State’s footnote 8 which challenges the authority cited by Lee states:

           Appellant only cites three published cases in support of his argument and represents to this Court
           that they stand for the propositions that a trial court must provide an explanation for its decision
           and it is an abuse of discretion when the trial court does not do so. (Appellant’s Brief at 9-12).
           However, none of those cases exist:

                   1.   Ex parte Vasquez, 248 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) cites to the tenth page
                        of In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.), a
                        mandamus case arising in the context of a divorce proceeding. (Appellant’s
                        Brief at 9). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not published an opinion
                        with that caption since 1986, which was an application for writ of habeas
                        corpus alleging applicant’s sentences were illegally cumulated. See Ex parte
                        Vasquez, 712 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

                   2.   Ex parte Clayton, 592 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) cites to the seventh
                        page of M.H. Siegfried Real Estate, Inc. v. Renfrow, 592 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. App.
                        1979), an appeal from a Missouri trial court’s denial of an injunction and
                        damages related to a real property dispute. (Applicant’s Brief at 9). The Texas
                        Court of Criminal Appeals did not publish an opinion in 1979 captioned Ex
                        parte Clayton and has only published two cases with that caption. See Ex parte
                        Clayton, 350 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); Ex parte Clayton, 103 S.W. 630
                        (Tex. Crim. App. 1907).

                   3.   Ex parte Martinez, 340 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) cites to the fifth page
                        of Cochran v. Cochran, 340 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. App. 2011), an appeal from a
                        Missouri circuit court’s judgment dissolving a marriage. (Appellant’s Brief at
                        10, 11). Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) is the only
Ex parte Lee                                                                                               Page 2
record. These deficiencies, although brought to the Court’s and to Lee’s attention by the

State in its brief to this Court, were neither contested nor corrected by Lee in any kind of

reply, amended, or supplemental brief. 2 Thus, Lee inadequately briefs his sole issue on

appeal.

        The failure to adequately brief an issue presents nothing for us to review, and we

                     published opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2011 with that
                     caption and is an application for writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective
                     assistance in applicant’s trial for capital murder.

        In addition to Appellant’s inappropriate citations to authorities, his brief does not contain a
        separate Statement of the Case; does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent
        to the issue presented; does not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments
        made in the body of the brief; and is devoid of any citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d),
        (g), (h), (i); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a) and (b); Letter from [the] Clerk of the Court, Tenth Court
        of Appeals, to [District Attorney] and [appellate counsel] (Mar. 13, 2023) (“Briefs not in substantial
        compliance with these rules will be stricken.”) (emphasis in original).

2
 Based upon a recent Texas Bar CLE, “Have the Robot Lawyers Finally Arrived? Practical Concerns and Ethical
Dimension of ChatGPT,” presented by John G. Browning of Spencer Fane LLP, it appears that at least the
“Argument” portion of the brief may have been prepared by artificial intelligence (AI). To avoid this
problem, Federal District Court Judge, Brantley Starr, requires the following certification for pleadings filed
in cases pending in his court:

                     CERTIFICATE REGARDING JUDGE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

                 I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that I have read and will comply with
        all judge-specific requirements for Judge Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for
        the Northern District of Texas.
                 I further certify that no portion of any filing in this case will be drafted by
        generative artificial intelligence or that any language drafted by generative artificial
        intelligence—including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis—
        will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a
        human being before it is submitted to the Court. I understand that any attorney who signs
        any filing in this case will be held responsible for the contents thereof according to
        applicable rules of attorney discipline, regardless of whether generative artificial
        intelligence drafted any portion of that filing.

                                                        [ATTORNEY NAME(S)]

Because we have no information regarding why the briefing is illogical, and because we have addressed
the issue raised on appeal, we resist the temptation to issue a show cause order as a New York federal
district judge did in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94323 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023, order), or report
the attorney to the State Bar of Texas for a potential investigation for a violation of the State Bar rules.
Ex parte Lee                                                                                               Page 3
are not required to make an appellant's arguments for him. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i);

Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d

661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); see also Neville v. State, 622 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2020, no pet.). Accordingly, because Lee inadequately briefs his sole issue, it

presents nothing for our review and is overruled.

       Having overruled Lee’s sole issue, the trial court’s Order Denying Application for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed on July 14, 2022, is affirmed.

                                          TOM GRAY
                                          Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2023
Publish
[OT06]

Ex parte Lee                                                                           Page 4