Roosevelt Trammel v. D & D Auto Repair Service

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00412-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 16, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00412-CV

ROOSEVELT TRAMMEL, Appellant V. D & D AUTO REPAIR SERVICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-07816

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell Opinion by Justice Nowell Appellant filed his brief on May 23, 2024. We then notified appellant, who

is proceeding pro se, that his brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the

brief, including that it did not contain a table of contents, an index of authority

indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the

case supported by record references. Further, no part of the brief contained any

citations to the record or to any authorities. We instructed appellant to file an

amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file

an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date,

appellant has failed to do so.

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. 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 v. Farmers Branch

Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even

liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with

the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear,

concise, specific arguments, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.

–2– Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so.

Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE 240412F.P05

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

ROOSEVELT TRAMMEL, On Appeal from the 116th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-07816. No. 05-24-00412-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Chief Justice Burns and Justice D & D AUTO REPAIR SERVICE, Molberg participating. Appellee

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

Judgment entered July 16, 2024

–4–