Opinion
No. 05-19-01435-CV
04-03-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF C.B. AND B.B., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-18314
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Appellee has filed a motion to strike appellant's corrected brief and to dismiss this appeal from the trial court's order confirming a non-agreed child support review order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 233.027(a)(1). Appellee argues, in part, that the corrected brief, filed after the Court informed appellant his original brief failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 and 38.1, is deficient and presents nothing for review. Although more than ten days have passed since the motion was filed, appellant has not filed a response.
Appellant is representing himself. The corrected brief he filed is the same brief he originally filed but includes a "note on efile" that states:
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS SCANNABLE AND SEARCHABLE WITH EXHIBITS/APPENDIXES [sic] BROKEN OUT. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED OF A PRO-SE APPELLANT. RULE 38 REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PRO SE, AND THEREFORE THIS BRIEF IS COMPLETE AND COMPLIANT.
The note accompanying appellant's corrected brief further stated: "ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A COURT REPORTER RECORD AVAILABLE. [THE REPORTER] HAS NOT AND WILL NOT RESPOND TO ARRANGEMENT REQUESTS." This portion of the note appears to be in response to the Court's January 29, 2020 order submitting the appeal without the reporter's record after the reporter informed the Court appellant had not paid for the record. Based on our disposition of the appeal, reconsideration of our January 29th order is unnecessary.
Appellant is incorrect. As we stated in Bolling v. Farmers Branch Independent School District, "[t]he right of self-representation (or being what is commonly called a pro se litigant) carries with it the responsibility to adhere to our rules of evidence and procedure, including our appellate rules of procedure if the party chooses to represent himself at the appeal level." 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).
One of the requirements of our rules of appellate procedure is that an appellant's brief must state concisely the complaint the appellant has; provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why the complaint has legal and factual merit; and be supported by relevant legal authorities. See id. (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i)). A brief that fails to comply with these requirements presents nothing for review. See id. at 896.
Appellant's corrected brief asserts error in the calculation of his child support obligation and in the support start date but, as we noted in our letter informing him the brief was deficient, provides no supporting argument or legal authorities from which we can determine the merits of the complaints. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Accordingly, it presents nothing for review. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896.
Our letter informing appellant his brief was deficient directed him to file a corrected brief that complies with the briefing requirements of the rules of appellate procedure and cautioned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice. Rather than filing a compliant brief, appellant filed the same brief we had deemed deficient, concluding on his own that the briefing requirements do not apply to pro se litigants. Although appellee's motion to dismiss is based, in part, on appellant's failure to file a compliant brief, appellant has not responded to the motion nor has he attempted to file a second corrected brief that conforms with the appellate rules. Accordingly, on the brief and circumstances before us, we grant appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal.
/Ken Molberg//
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE 191435f.p05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-18314.
Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Bridges and Carlyle participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Shelley Renfro Beeson recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Tyler Gregory Beeson. Judgment entered this 3rd day of April 2020.