INNOCENT CHUKWUD IKEMENOGO v. ROMAN REYES (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Francis

Innocent Chukwud Ikemenogo appeals the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the property at issue to Roman Reyes.   We dismiss this appeal.

Appellant signed a six-month commercial lease for property located at 2138 California Crossing Street in Dallas.   The lease stipulated the property was being leased for $6000 “as is” and allowed appellant to renew the lease in six-month increments under the same terms.   In a letter dated February 1, 2010, appellee informed appellant that, because he was nine months behind on his rent, appellant needed to vacate the premises.   Appellant did not do so, and appellee filed a complaint for forcible detainer in justice of the peace court.   When appellant failed to appear, the court found in favor of appellee, awarding him $9000 in back rent and possession of the premises.   Appellant filed an appeal in county court at law.   Following an evidentiary hearing, the county court at law granted appellee possession of the property and $12,000 in unpaid rent.   This appeal followed.

An “individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal.”  Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep.   Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).   The right of self-representation carries with it the responsibility to adhere to a court's rules of evidence and procedure, including this Court's appellate rules of procedure if the party chooses to represent himself at the appeal level.  Id. We do not treat pro se litigants differently than a party who is represented by a licensed attorney.   See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex.1978);  Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

The rules of appellate procedure require an appellant to state concisely the complaint presented for review, provide an understandable, succinct, and clear argument why his complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with appropriate record references.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f), (h), & (i);  Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.   If the appellant fails to do so, we may inform him of the deficiencies and instruct him to file an amended brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.9. When we do, we inform the appellant the failure to file an amended brief that complies with the rules may result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(c);  Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.   We are not responsible for presenting issues for review or doing the legal research that might support a party's contentions.  Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

In this case, we informed appellant by letter dated August 16, 2010 that his brief was deficient in eighteen respects.   We instructed appellant to file an amended brief that complied with the rules of appellate procedure.   Appellant's amended brief, filed Octber 11, 2010, does not state concisely all issues presented for review, provide a concise statement of facts supported by record references, provide succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments, cite us to appropriate legal authority supporting appellant's claims, or provide appropriate citations to the record.

Because appellant failed to comply with our briefing requirements after having been instructed and given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss this appeal.   See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897;  see also Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(c).

100462F.P05

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE