Opinion
NO. 14-20-00074-CV
05-18-2021
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE ORCHARD AT WESTCHASE, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1146415
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jacqueline Johnson appeals the county court's final judgment ordering that she vacate the premises owned by appellee The Orchard at Westchase ("The Orchard"). For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Orchard initiated in justice court a forcible entry and detainer proceeding to evict Johnson for failure to pay rent. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 24.002, 24.004. The justice court entered a judgment for The Orchard for possession of the premises and rent owed.
Johnson appealed the judgment to the county court for a trial de novo. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 506.1, 506.3. The county court signed a final judgment on January 13, 2020, ordering that Johnson vacate the premises and awarding The Orchard $3,104 in damages. The county court's final judgment also awarded The Orchard $1,050 in attorney's fees as well as appellate attorney's fees contingent on an unsuccessful appeal. Johnson timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
Johnson represents herself pro se on appeal. Liberally construed, Johnson's appellate brief appears to argue that (1) the eviction was not justified, (2) The Orchard "made false claims" during the underlying proceedings, and (3) The Orchard incurred attorney's fees that were not necessary. Johnson does not cite any authority or any portion of the appellate record to support these contentions.
Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, pro se appellants are held to the same standards as appellants represented by counsel to avoid giving them an unfair advantage. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Reule v. M & T Mortg., 483 S.W.3d 600, 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). Holding Johnson to this standard, we conclude she failed to raise substantive arguments or to support her position on those issues with citations to legal authorities and the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (requiring "argument for contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record"); see also WorldPeace v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (the appellant presented insufficient appellate argument because he "offer[ed] no argument or citations to the record or to authority").
Moreover, an evaluation of the issues Johnson seeks to raise on appeal appears to depend on the evidence presented at trial. But there is no reporter's record in this case and the official court reporter certified that no reporter's record of the trial exists. In cases such as this, when there is no reporter's record and there are no findings of fact, we assume the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings needed to support the judgment. See Vickery v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 5 S.W.3d 241, 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied); see also James v. Houston Hous. Auth., No. 14-13-00312-CV, 2014 WL 3555755, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that when "there is no reporter's record . . . this court is bound to presume that the proceedings in the trial court support its judgment"). Therefore, we do not review Johnson's issues dependent on an analysis of the evidence at trial.
We overrule Johnson's issues on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the county court's January 13, 2020 final judgment.
/s/ Meagan Hassan
Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.