Danita J. Harris v. CR Propertywise LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00349-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024

S In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00349-CV

DANITA J. HARRIS, Appellant V. CR PROPERTYWISE LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01309-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle We dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution on November 14, 2023, but

later withdrew that opinion and ordered appellant, who is proceeding pro se, to file

her brief by December 28, 2023. Appellant did so and on January 24, 2024, we

notified appellant that her brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did

not contain a statement of the case, a table of authorities, or a table of contents. More

importantly, the brief did not contain any citations to the record or to authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within ten

days.

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in

a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. We are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be

favorable to a party’s position. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315

S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (citing Fredonia State Bank v.

Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283–284 (Tex. 1994)). Thus, the right to

appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of

appellate procedure, which require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we

are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of

appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the

record where each alleged error can be found. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott,

No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no

pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

Even liberally construing appellant’s amended brief, we conclude that it is

wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant

violation of rule 38.1. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although directed to

correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so.

–2– Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE 230349F.P05 JUSTICE

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

DANITA J. HARRIS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-23-00349-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01309- D. CR PROPERTYWISE LLC, Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Appellee Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered July 24, 2024

–4–