Opinion
05-21-00335-CV
02-02-2023
YANIKA DANIELS, Appellant v. SUSIE BATTIE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-06655-2020
Before Molberg, Reichek, and Breedlove, Justices
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARICELA BREEDLOVE, JUSTICE.
The trial court denied appellant Yanika Daniels's application for injunctive relief against appellee Susie Battie and rendered a final judgment disposing of all parties and claims. Representing herself on appeal, Daniels filed an appellant's brief. We notified her that her brief was deficient and instructed her to file an amended brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because she failed to do so, we dismiss her appeal. 1
Background
Although Daniels has not included a statement of facts in her brief, the record reflects that she is the mother of two children. The children's father and Daniels are long-separated, and he is now married to Battie. Daniels sought injunctive relief against Battie, alleging that Battie had caused irreparable harm by holding herself out as the children's mother and by engaging in harassing behavior against Daniels while attending the children's activities.
There were two hearings on Daniels's application. At the first, only Daniels appeared, pro se. Daniels testified about Battie's alleged behavior at the children's extracurricular and sports activities, asserting that Battie disparaged her, blocked her path to the children, excluded her from communications with other parents, and gave the children gifts and money, among other complaints. The trial court granted relief in part, requiring Battie to maintain a distance of 500 feet from Daniels and to refrain from communicating with Daniels's friends, family, and associates in a threatening or harassing manner.
Battie filed a motion for new trial and to set aside the trial court's judgment, alleging that she was not served with notice of the injunction hearing. The trial court granted Battie's motion, Daniels filed a supplemental petition, and the case proceeded to trial, this time with both parties appearing and testifying. After hearing both parties' evidence, the trial court denied Daniels's application and rendered judgment that Daniels take nothing on her claims. This appeal followed. 2
Discussion
In a single issue, Daniels argues the trial court "abused its discretion and erred" by denying her requested relief after having granted it "based on the same relevant facts, the same parties, the same issues, the same cause of action and the same applicable law." We agree that we review the trial court's ruling denying a temporary injunction for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). The trial court does not abuse its discretion by making a decision based on conflicting evidence, however, and is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and evidence. Buck v. Kozlowski, No. 13-21-00123-CV, 2022 WL 1669146, at *3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 26, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Contrary to Daniels's argument, in the second hearing, unlike the first, both parties were present, both parties were represented by counsel, and both parties testified.
As this Court has notified her, Daniels's brief lacks elements that are essential to our review of her appeal. Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision. Id. We do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing when deciding whether an appellant's brief is deficient. Id. at 895. We do, however, examine briefs for compliance with the briefing rules. Id. If, after a close examination, we can conclude 3 a brief complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, then we submit the appeal for review and decision on the merits. Id. If, however, we cannot conclude that a brief is compliant, then we may dismiss the appeal as authorized by our appellate rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96.
Daniels's brief lacks any statement of the relevant facts or any citation to applicable law to guide us in our review. Although the brief contains the heading, "Statement of the Facts," the page below the heading is blank. Similarly, there is a blank page entitled "Index of Authorities" with subheadings for "Case law" and "Statutes and Rules" that have nothing beneath them. There is no legal argument. By letter of January 18, 2022, we notified Daniels of these deficiencies in her January 12, 2022 brief and advised her that failure to file an amended brief that complied with the rules of appellate procedure within ten days could result in dismissal of her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Daniels did not respond, and on March 29, 2022, we ordered the case to be submitted on Daniels's January 12, 2022 brief.
"We are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position," or "for doing the legal research that might support a party's contentions." Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. "Were we to do so, even for a pro se litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our role as judges to become an advocate for that party." Id. Without a statement of the pertinent facts or a "clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations 4 to authorities and to the record," Daniels has preserved nothing for our review. See Steele v. Humphreys, No. 05-19-00988-CV, 2020 WL 6440499, at *3 (Tex. App.- Dallas Nov. 3, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Because Daniels failed to comply with the briefing requirements of the rules of appellate procedure after having been given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-97.
Conclusion
The appeal is dismissed. 5
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee Susie Battie recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Yanika Daniels. 6