Tony Monshey Saddler v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 14, 2020
• Docket: 09-19-00212-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00212-CR __________________

TONY MONSHEY SADDLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-09-11241 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tony Monshey Saddler appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily

injury to a family member, enhanced to a second-degree felony. After reviewing the

appellate brief filed by Saddler’s appointed counsel, we note that his brief presents

statements, factual assertions, and arguments that are unclear or incomplete, and fails

to include any citations to the record. An appellant’s brief must contain (1) a

statement of the case concisely stating the nature of the case, the course of the

proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition, each of which should be supported by

1 citation to the record, (2) a statement of facts that must be supported by record

references, and (3) “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (g),

(i). When an appellate issue is unsupported by argument or lacks citation to the

record or legal authority, nothing is preserved for review. See Wolfe v. State, 509

S.W.3d 325, 342-43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly, an appellant may forfeit error through his

failure to brief adequately. See Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 358 (Tex. Crim. App.

2011).

An appellate court has no obligation to construct and compose an appellant’s

issues, facts, and arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.

Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby v. State, 253

S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We conclude that Saddler’s complaints

are inadequately briefed, and because we have no obligation to consider

inadequately briefed points of error, we overrule Saddler’s complaints. See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i); Busby, 253 S.W.3d at 673. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

2 Submitted on May 6, 2020 Opinion Delivered October 14, 2020 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.