Thursday, May 22, 2008

Another Pro-Se Appellant Gets Routed

He who represents himself has a _______ for counsel, especially in the absence of familiarity with the appeallate proces.

Reed v. REO Properties Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 22, 2008)(Alcala) (waiver of appeal, inadequate briefing)
Opinion by Justice Alcala Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks
01-06-00637-CV Willis C. Reed v. REO Properties Corp.Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd
Representatives of parties: Appellant pro se Appellee: Attorney Rex L. Kesler
Disposition: Affirmed

Waiver of Appeal

Reed fails to present any clear grounds for reversal on appeal and fails to cite to the record or to any authority in his brief.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h) requires that an appellant’s brief “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). “Rule 38 requires [a party] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the authorities relied upon as may be requisite to maintain the point at issue.” Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). “This is not done by merely uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.” Id. “Issues on appeal are waived if an appellant fails to support his contention by citations to appropriate authority or cites only to a single non-controlling case.” Abdelnour v. Mid Nat’l Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see Daniel v. Falcon Interest Realty Corp., 190 S.W.3d 177, 189 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

Reed’s brief does not present any grounds for reversal of the trial court’s judgment nor does it contain a single citation to a legal authority or the record. We therefore hold that Reed has waived his right of appeal due to inadequate briefing. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).


We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No comments: