in the Interest of M.N.B. and D.M.B. ( 2015 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 26, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01722-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND D.M.B.
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Appellant Dante Berry filed for a divorce from his wife, appellee Margaret Nicole Banks.
No reporter’s record has been filed, but the final decree of divorce contains a recital that Berry
did not appear for trial and that the case was tried to the bench. The trial court granted the
parties a divorce and appointed Banks the sole managing conservator of the parties’ two minor
children, M.N.B. and D.M.B. Although the court appointed Berry possessory conservator, the
court also ordered that Berry would have no access to or possession of the children until Berry
appeared in court and the court made further orders regarding access and possession. Berry
appeals pro se, asserting twenty issues on appeal. We affirm based on deficiencies in Berry’s
amended appellate brief.
APPLICABLE LAW
We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and we require them
to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In re I.A.S., No. 05-13-00947-CV, 2014 WL
1483592, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have neither the duty
nor the right to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine if
there was error. Id. at *2.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require appropriate citations to the record in the
statement of facts and argument sections of an appellate brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); see
also Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2010, no pet.) (“If record references are not made . . . the brief fails.”). The rules also require “a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Bare assertions of error without citations to the record or to authority
present nothing for us to review. In re I.A.S., 2014 WL 1483592, at *1.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
After Berry filed his original brief, we notified him of its numerous deficiencies under the
rules of appellate procedure. He filed an amended brief that suffers from many of the same
defects as his original brief. For example, his statement of facts is based largely on matters
outside the record and contains no record citations. The argument section of his brief is one
paragraph long, contains no record citations or citations to legal authority, and merely refers us
back to the statement of issues presented and the statement of the facts.
Because the one-paragraph argument section of Berry’s brief is devoid of substance, we
have reviewed his five-page statement of the issues to determine if he supported any of them
with adequate briefing. Issues two, six, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and
twenty contain no citations to legal authority at all. Issues one, three, four, seven, eight, nine,
–2–
ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, and sixteen refer in passing to various constitutional provisions and
statutes, but they contain no reasoned argumentation applying those provisions to the facts of this
case. Issue five contains a list of appellate cases, but again Berry provides no argumentation
applying them to the facts of this case. And there are no record citations in the issues presented
or anywhere else in Berry’s brief. We conclude that all of Berry’s issues presented are
inadequately briefed and are therefore waived. See id. at *2; see also In re Estate of Miller, 243
S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (issue waived because appellant did not
analyze legal authority and made “no suggested application of it to the facts”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Crouch v.
Continental Cas. Co., No. 05-06-00605-CV, 2007 WL 2028761, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July
16, 2007, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment after concluding appellant waived all
issues for inadequate briefing).
131722F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B. AND On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District
D.M.B. Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-09630.
No. 05-13-01722-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
Justices Lang and Brown participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee Margaret Nicole Banks recover her costs of this appeal
from appellant Dante Berry.
Judgment entered February 26, 2015.
–4–