Roger Earl Ebarb v. Nancy Ebarb Hopson as Independent of the Estate of Lucille Leone Ebarb

NUMBER 13-13-00050-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
ROGER EARL EBARB, Appellant,
v.
NANCY EBARB HOPSON AS
INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF
THE ESTATE OF LUCILLE
LEONE EBARB, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court
of Newton County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on February 13, 2013. On
March 12, 2013, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4., 9.5(e), 38.1.
On March 15, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to
comply with Rule 9.4, 9.5 (e) and 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The
brief does not contain the following: the identity of parties and counsel as required by
rule 38.1(a); a table of contents as required by rule 38.1(b); an index of authorities as
required by rule 38.1(c); a statement of the case supported by record references as
required by rule 38.1(d); the issues presented for review as required by rule 38.1(f); a
statement of facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by rule 38.1(g);
a summary of the argument as required by rule 38.1(h); a clear and concise argument for
the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record as
required by rule 38.1(i); a prayer stating the nature of the relief sought as required by rule
38.1(j); and does not contain an appendix as required by rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.1. Additionally, the brief’s margins, spacing and typeface are not in compliance
and the brief does not contain a certificate of compliance or a certificate of service. See
id. 9.4, 9.5(e).
Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the
Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit
appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under
which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id.
38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.
2
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they
must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the
briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended,
supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file
another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may
strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed
to file a brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an
appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution.
Accordingly, we strike appellant’s non-conforming brief and order the appeal
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a),
42.3(b), (c). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
25th day of April, 2013.
3