Anibal Moses Cardona-Barrrios D/B/A Cardona Steel Erectors v. Abel Godoy Ramos ( 2024 )

Opinion issued April 23, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00671-CV
———————————
ANIBAL MOISES CARDONA-BARRIOS D/B/A CARDONA STEEL
ERECTORS, Appellant
V.
ABEL GODOY RAMOS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1141994
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Abel Godoy Ramos severed a finger from his right hand while performing
metalwork for his employer, Anibal Moises Cardona-Barrios, doing business as
Cardona Steel Erectors. Ramos sued Cardona for negligence. A jury returned a
verdict for Ramos and awarded him $100,000 in damages. After the trial court
rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, Cardona appealed. Because
Cardona has failed to file an appellant’s brief that complies with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
“[A]ppellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably
possible.” St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flake, 595 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex.
2020). To enable an appellate court to do that, an appellant’s brief “must contain a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).
Stated differently, in order for an appellate court to be able to address an issue,
the appealing party must argue the issue’s substance. Flake, 595 S.W.3d at 214. An
appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of
the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. See Wade v.
Comm’n for Law. Discipline, 961 S.W.2d 366, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1997, no pet.). An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to the record
or legal authority presents nothing for our review. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen.
Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284–85 (Tex. 1994).
Here, after Cardona filed his first appellant’s brief in this Court, Ramos moved
to strike the brief, arguing that it failed to provide either substantive analysis or
citations to the record and authorities as required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Ramos
complained that Cardona failed to cite any specific evidence in support of his issue.
2
Rather, the majority of his brief was comprised of a complete transcript of his trial
testimony. Further, he failed to provide argument or supporting legal authority.
We granted Ramos’s motion, struck Cardona’s brief, and ordered Cardona to
file a corrected brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
id.Cardona filed an amended brief that is largely the same as his original brief.
Ramos has now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the amended brief
again fails to comply with Rule 38.1(i). See id. Cardona’s amended brief is again
comprised of 22 pages of trial testimony and the purported verbatim text from two
case opinions, without any explanation, reasoning, or analysis as to how or why any
of it relates to the issues presented.
Indeed, Cardona’s amended brief is essentially a refiled version of his
previous brief with certain pages of text simply rearranged. Cardona does not direct
us to any specific evidence or testimony, or explain why his cited authority supports
his contentions. See id. He only globally disputes that he was negligent and offers
no substantive analysis. See Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc.,
106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“Rule 38
requires [an appellant] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the
authorities relied upon . . . to maintain the point at issue. This is not done by merely
uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.”).
3
We thus conclude that Cardona has not corrected the deficiencies in his
original brief as directed in this Court’s previous order and has not provided us with
a brief that complies with Rule 38.1(i). See, e.g., Tyurin v. Cap. One, N.A., No. 01-
16-00810-CV, 2018 WL 2925688, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 12,
2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). We therefore grant Ramos’s motion and dismiss this
appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All
other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
4