Nos. 04-02-00022-CR, 04-02-00023-CR.
Delivered and Filed February 5, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH.
From the County Court at Law, Polk County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. 2001-0354 2001-0355. AFFIRMED.
Before Chief Justice LÓPEZ and Justices STONE and GREEN.
Opinion By ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice
Appearing pro se, appellant Kenneth Dudley appeals his conviction in the county court at law finding him guilty of failing to maintain a Texas Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Certificate and failing to maintain an automatic device on a breakaway trailer as required by law. Dudley appears to raise four issues on appeal (1) lack of probable cause; (2) lack of a speedy trial; (3) attempted extortion by the county; and (4) improper jury instruction. We conclude Dudley's issues are without merit and affirm the judgments of conviction.
Briefing
In his brief to this court, Dudley asserts that "the state failed to allow [him] lack of probable cause." In support of this statement, appellant cites to the testimony of the state trooper who stopped him for an inspection and testified that probable cause to stop was not needed. Regarding his second issue, Dudley asserts "the lack of a speedy trial." In support of this issue, he asserts that he never requested time to hire an attorney and cites to three arraignments hearings. These same arraignment hearings are then listed in support of his contention of the county's attempted extortion. In support of his fourth issue regarding an improper jury instruction, Dudley directs this court to the Texas Constitution. Both below and on appeal, Dudley appears pro se. Dudley is not entitled to any special treatment because he is proceeding pro se. To the contrary, he is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with the rules of procedures. Stelbacky v. State, 22 S.W.3d 583, 586 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.). Dudley has not included any citation of authority to support his contentions, causing his arguments to be inadequately briefed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 256 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998)). Accordingly, Dudley's first four issues are not preserved for appellate review. State v. Mason, 980 S.W.2d 635, 641 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). As an appellate court, it is not our task to speculate as to the nature of appellant's legal theory. Because Dudley has not complied with our briefing rules, we overrule these issues. As a potential fifth issue, Dudley asserts that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because "there is nothing in the complaints that can be regarded as laws. . . ." Dudley argues in a conclusory fashion and offers no authority to support this contention. Accordingly, he has waived any error. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.