Opinion
05-23-00631-CR
03-18-2024
KAYLA MILIA FRELIX, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR16-1419
Before Justices Nowell, Miskel, and Kennedy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
The State indicted appellant Kayla Milia Frelix for intentionally and knowingly leaving the scene of an accident in which she caused damage to another vehicle. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §550.022(c)(2) (accident involving damage to a vehicle equal to or greater than $200; Class B Misdemeanor). She was arrested on March 31, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, deferred a finding of guilty, and placed her on deferred adjudication for community supervision for fourteen months. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt on May 3, 2018, which the trial court granted on June 20, 2023.
Appellant represented herself in the trial court and appears pro se on appeal. It is well-settled a pro se litigant must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Henry v. State, 948 S.W.2d 338, 240 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no writ). An appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise statement of the issues presented for review, and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(f), (i). The requirement of rule 38.1(i) is not satisfied by merely uttering brief, conclusory statements unsupported by legal citations. See King v. State, 17 S.W.3d 7, 23 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). The requirement is also not satisfied when appellant fails to cite to portions of the record supporting her argument. Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(g).
Appellant's brief falls short of the minimum required to present an issue for appellate review. Henry, 948 S.W.2d at 240; Marzett v. State, No. 05-14-01570-CR, 2015 WL 3451960, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 29, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even an attempt to liberally construe her briefing is untenable as she fails to discuss any applicable law or attempt to apply law to the facts of the case.
We affirm the trial court's June 22, 2023 Judgment Adjudicating Guilt Nunc Pro Tunc.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's June 22, 2023 Judgment Adjudicating Guilt Nunc Pro Tunc is AFFIRMED.