Opinion
05-23-00349-CV
07-24-2024
DANITA J. HARRIS, Appellant v. CR PROPERTYWISE LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01309-D.
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
We dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution on November 14, 2023, but later withdrew that opinion and ordered appellant, who is proceeding pro se, to file her brief by December 28, 2023. Appellant did so and on January 24, 2024, we notified appellant that her brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did not contain a statement of the case, a table of authorities, or a table of contents. More importantly, the brief did not contain any citations to the record or to authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within ten days.
The purpose of an appellant's brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. We are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (citing Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283-284 (Tex. 1994)). Thus, the right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of appellant's position, to cite appropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App-Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
Even liberally construing appellant's amended brief, we conclude that it is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.1. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although directed to correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so.
Under these circumstances, we strike appellant's brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).
JUDGMENT
Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.