Opinion
No. 04-14-00721-CV
03-18-2015
Andres RAMOS Jr., Appellant v. Gigi CASTANEDA, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the County Court, Maverick County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3220
Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
The Honorable David R. Saucedo, presiding judge of the Maverick County Court, recused himself. The Honorable Ron Carr signed the judgment in the underlying cause.
On January 23, 2015, we notified pro se Appellant Andrés Ramos Jr. that the brief filed on January 20, 2015, failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We recited some of the defects in his brief: e.g., no part of the brief contained any citations to the record, the brief failed to list or cite any authorities to support Appellant's arguments, and the brief contained no proof of service. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e).
We struck Appellant's brief and ordered him to file an amended brief that corrected the listed deficiencies and fully complied with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply with our order, we could "strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief." See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a)(1) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely file a brief).
On March 2, 2015, Appellant filed an amended brief. The amended brief contains an index of authorities and other sections required by Rule 38.1 (e.g., Identity of Parties and Counsel, Table of Contents), but it fails to comply with Rule 38.1. The brief makes a few references to Chapter 92 of the Texas Property Code, but otherwise provides no appropriate citations to authorities or to the record. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring "clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record"). The argument portion of the brief consists in its entirety of three sentences. It contains no citations to applicable case law or to the record. Contra id.
Appellant's brief is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review. See Ruiz v. State, 293 S.W.3d 685, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref'd); Robert L. Crill, Inc. v. Bond, 76 S.W.3d 411, 423 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We strike Appellant's amended brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM