Jus Payton v. Angela Crouch

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 23, 2019
• Docket: 05-17-01252-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 23, 2019

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01252-CV

JUSTIN PAYTON, Appellant V. ANGELA CROUCH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-27369

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill

On October 3, 2017, the trial court granted Angela Crouch–Payton’s petition for divorce from

Justin Payton. Justin Payton, pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment.

Initially, we note that a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and

must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573

S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex.1978). On appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present

its case. Id.; Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.

denied).

The rules of appellate procedure require appellant's brief to 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(h). An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for the court to review. Birnbaum v. Law Offices of G. David Westfall,

120 S.W.3d 470, 477 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied). Similarly, we cannot speculate as to

the substance of the specific issues appellant claims we must address. Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678.

An appellate court has no duty to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law

to determine whether the error complained of occurred. Id.

We are faced with a difficult task in attempting to address this pro se appellant’s appeal.

The appellant’s brief and amended brief are handwritten notes asking for our help. Appellant

provides no issues, discussion, or argument and cites neither legal authorities, nor the record. We

cannot draft and articulate what we think appellant meant to raise on appeal. Accordingly, we

resolve appellant’s issue(s) against him. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

/Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE

171252F.P05

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

JUSTIN PAYTON, Appellant On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-17-01252-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-27369. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. ANGELA CROUCH, Appellee Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered January 23, 2019.

–3–