Opinion
04-22-00799-CV
02-27-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF L.C.M., a child
From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-067 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Appellant filed his brief on December 16, 2022. The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain: (1) a statement of facts with record references; or (2) a legal argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g), (i). Although substantial compliance with Rule 38.1 is generally sufficient, this court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See id. R. 38.9(a). We conclude the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.1. Additionally, the brief does not comply with Rules 9.4 or 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 9.4, 9.5. Specifically, the brief is not double-spaced, and does not include a certificate of compliance stating the number of words in the document or a certificate of service showing proof of service on the opposing party or its counsel. See id. R. 9.4(d), 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d), (e).
We therefore order appellant's brief stricken and further order appellant to file an amended brief by March 29, 2023.
The amended brief must correct the violations listed above and fully comply with Rules 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another brief, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief). Even if we do not strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we may find any issues raised by appellant are waived due to inadequate briefing and overrule those issues. See, e.g., Marin Real Estate Partners v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2011, no pet.). We recognize appellant represents himself on appeal, i.e. he is acting pro se. However, "[l]itigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules." Li v. Pemberton Park Cmty. Ass'n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 705-06 (Tex. 2021) (alteration in original).