Opinion
No. 05-16-00995-CV
04-18-2017
SIBI JOSEPH, Appellant v. JARVOUS WILLIS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00671-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Sibi Joseph, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court's summary judgment against him on Jarvous Willis's suit for fraud and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Joseph timely filed a brief on December 15, 2016, but the brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Accordingly, we notified him his brief was deficient and instructed him to file an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies no later than January 8, 2017. That deadline was subsequently extended to March 29, 2017. In the order extending the deadline, we cautioned Joseph that failure to file the corrected brief by March 29th could result in the appeal being submitted on the defective brief. See Boiling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). To date, no corrected brief has been filed.
The purpose of a brief is to acquaint the reviewing court with the facts and issues of the case and provide the court with supporting argument and authority so that it may decide the merits of the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (f)-(i); Butler v. Hide-a-Way Lake Club, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (quoting former Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 74(p), the predecessor to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38). To ensure a brief accomplishes its purpose, the rules of appellate procedure list specific requirements for a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38. Among the requirements for an appellant's brief are a concise statement of the pertinent facts, a statement of the complaints presented for review, and a succinct and clear argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to the record and authorities. See id. 38.1(f)-(i). Although a reviewing court construes the briefing rules liberally, a brief fails if it makes a court guess about the appellant's complaints, search the record for facts that may be favorable to the appellant's position, or conduct legal research that might support appellant's contentions. See id. 38.9; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. This is true even if the appellant is pro se and untrained in law. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
In his brief, Joseph asserts the evidence supports judgment in his favor. However, he provides no citations to the record or any legal authority in support of his assertion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). Accordingly, his brief fails. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. Having given him more than three months to correct the brief, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897.
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE 160995F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00671-A.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellee Jarvous Willis recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Sibi Joseph. Judgment entered this day of April 18, 2017.