Opinion
NO. 01-16-00448-CV
07-27-2017
KENNETH COLEMAN, Appellant v. PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1060172
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kenneth Coleman, is appealing a default judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Progressive sued Coleman for an automobile accident that occurred on June 8, 2013. Coleman answered and asserted a general denial. After Coleman did not appear for trial, the trial court rendered a default judgment in Progressive's favor and awarded $10,604.43 in damages, court costs, and interest.
Coleman is representing himself on appeal. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, we nonetheless require pro se litigants to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (stating "pro se litigants are not exempt from the rules of procedure"); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). "Having two sets of rules—a strict set for attorneys and a lenient set for pro se parties—might encourage litigants to discard their valuable right to the advice and assistance of counsel." Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 444. "Litigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules, or else they would be given an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel." Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 185; see also Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).
Pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure, Coleman'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). When an appellate issue is unsupported by argument or lacks citation to the record or legal authority, nothing is presented for review. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284-85 (Tex. 1994) (discussing "long-standing rule" that inadequate briefing waives issue on appeal). 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 Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845; see also Borisov v. Keels, No. 01-15-00522-CV, 2016 WL 3022603, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845.
Coleman recites the facts of this case in his brief and he attaches photographs of his vehicle, which do not appear to be part of the appellate record. He does not, however, raise any specific appellate issues or points for review in his brief, nor does he cite to any legal authorities or the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (i) (stating appellants' briefs must state issues presented for review and contain clear and concise argument for such issues, with appropriate citations to authorities and record). Accordingly, we hold that Coleman has waived any appellate issues due to inadequate briefing. Hamilton v. Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 328 S.W.3d 664, 667-68 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (concluding pro se litigant's issue inadequately briefed where argument did not "provide proper, meaningful analysis in support of his contentions"); see also Brown v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 01-14- 00725-CV, 2015 WL 4760201, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Russell Lloyd
Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Lloyd.