Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Dollars in United States Currency v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 18, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-00076-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 18, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00076-CV

SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-00937

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Smith, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Smith Joe Coffey, representing himself pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment in

favor of the State in this civil-forfeiture action. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Background

The State filed a notice of seizure and intended forfeiture, alleging that $7,890

in currency seized from Coffey was contraband in that (1) it was used or intended to

be used in the commission of a felony under Texas Health and Safety Code chapter

481, and (2) it was the proceeds gained from the felony of unlawful delivery of a

controlled substance and money laundering. Coffey, represented by counsel, filed an answer. The record reflects that the parties appeared for, and presented evidence

during, a bench trial and, thereafter, the trial court signed a judgment of forfeiture.

The trial court found that the currency was contraband and subject to forfeiture under

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 59 and ordered it forfeited to the State.

Coffey filed this appeal.

By letter dated March 29, 2022, we informed Coffey that we had received

notice from the court reporter that he had neither requested the record nor paid for

or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed Coffey to provide the Court

with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that

he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled

to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned Coffey that failure to provide

the required documentation might result in the appeal being submitted without the

reporter’s record. Coffey did not provide the Court with the required documentation.

Accordingly, on May 6, 2022, we ordered this appeal submitted without a reporter’s

record.

After Coffey filed his brief, the Court informed him that the brief did not

comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The Court’s September 30, 2022

notice advised that the brief was deficient because, among other things, it did not

contain a concise statement of the issues presented for review, a concise statement

of the facts supported by record references, or a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. See TEX.

–2– R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i). The Court directed Coffey to file an amended brief no

later than October 10, 2022, and cautioned that failure to file an amended brief could

result in his appeal being dismissed without further notice.

On October 6, 2022, Coffey filed a document purporting to be an amended

brief. The document stated that Coffey did not have some of the things the Court

requested in order to satisfy the requirements of rule 38.1. The document also

included a copy of a prior order by the Court in this appeal; a copy of the trial court’s

judgment of forfeiture; several otherwise empty pages labeled, respectively, Table

of Contents, Index of Authorities, Statement of the Case, Any Statement Regarding

Oral Argument, Issues Presented, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument,

and Argument; and an Automated Certificate of eService. On March 29, 2023, the

Court submitted this appeal on Coffey’s filings and a brief filed by the State of

Texas.

Analysis

We liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, but we hold pro se litigants

to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with

applicable laws and rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181,

184–85 (Tex. 1978)). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair

advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id. at 212.

–3– To present an issue to this Court, an appellant’s brief must contain, among

other things, a concise statement of the facts of the case supported by record

references and a clear and concise argument for the contention made with

appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); In re

N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. “Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority,

waive error.” In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. An appellant that fails to adequately

brief a complaint waives the complaint on appeal. Id. Coffey’s briefing in this

appeal does not provide the Court with argument, analysis, or authorities that make

his appellate complaint viable. By failing to adequately brief his complaint, he has

waived our review of his complaint. See, e.g., id.

Even if we were to consider the merits of Coffey’s appeal, we would find no

reversible error because no reporter’s record has been filed. As appellant, Coffey

had the burden of bringing forward a sufficient record to show the trial court erred.

Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2007, no pet.). An appellate record generally consists of both the clerk’s and

reporter’s record if the latter is necessary to the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1.

From Coffey’s original brief, we discern that he intends to appeal the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment.1 Specifically, he

asserts that there was no evidence or proof that the $7,890 in currency was

1 In support of his appeal, Coffey incorporated some documents in the brief. We cannot consider the documents, however, because they are not formally included in the record on appeal. See Burke v. Ins. Auto Auctions Corp., 169 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). –4– “contraband or forfeiture” and, instead, he inherited the currency from his mother’s

estate. An evaluation of Coffey’s complaint will depend on the evidence presented

at trial. Because there is no reporter’s record to show otherwise, we must presume

that the evidence presented at the bench trial supports the trial court’s judgment. See

Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam); Petterson v.

JGMS Invs. LLC, No. 05-15-01286-CV, 2016 WL 6124134, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Oct. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Petterson cannot prevail on a challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence without first meeting her burden of presenting a

sufficient record on appeal.”); $2,848.69 U.S. Currency v. State, No. 13-13-00524-

CV, 2015 WL 5576469, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 25,

2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“It was appellant’s burden to properly initiate the

completion of a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error. . . . Because

appellant has failed to request a transcript of the hearing and has raised points of

error on appeal involving matters omitted from the record before us, his actions have

prevented us from adequately addressing his dispute.”) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE 220076F.P05

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

SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS IN District Court, Dallas County, Texas UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-00937. Appellant Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Partida-Kipness and No. 05-22-00076-CV V. Breedlove participating.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

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

It is ORDERED that appellee STATE OF TEXAS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant JOE COFFEY.

Judgment entered this 18th day of April 2023.

–6–