IN THE INTEREST OF AND MINOR CHILDREN v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an agreed decree of divorce. Appellant, appearing pro se, filed a brief on January 9, 2017. On January 24, 2017, appellant was notified that his brief failed to satisfy the requirements of rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (“Rules”), and the corrected brief request identified seventeen defects. The corrected brief request cautioned appellant that failure to file an amended brief could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See Tex. R. App.

Although individuals have the right to represent themselves as pro se litigants in civil cases, they are required to follow the same rules of appellate procedure that licensed attorneys are required to follow. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Appellate court judges are not responsible for “identifying possible trial court error” or favorable facts or law to support parties' contentions. Id. Importantly, under rule 38.1(f), the Court “must be able to discern what question[s] of law [it] will be answering.” Id. at 896. A brief fails if it does not articulate the issues to be answered by the Court. Id. If a brief articulates the issues to be decided by the Court, “then rule 38.1(i) calls for the brief to guide us through the appellant's argument with clear and understandable statements of the contentions being made.” Id. Under Rule 38.1(i), appellant's argument must make direct references to facts in the record and applicable legal authority. Id. A brief fails under rule 38.1(i) if the Court “must speculate or guess about what contentions are being made,” or if references to facts or legal authority “are not made or are inaccurate, misstated, or misleading.” Id. A brief also fails under rule 38.1(i) if it addresses arguments based on evidence not in the record. See Burruss v Citibank (S.D.) N.A., 392 S.W.3d 759, 762 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied).

In his amended brief, appellant contends “[t]he District Court Judge erred by accepting a version of an ‘Agreed Decree of Divorce’ that was in fact not agreed upon by your Appellant.” In making this argument, he cites to five exhibits attached to his brief, only one of which is included in the record. As supporting authority, he cites to Texas Penal Code sections 37.03 and 37.04 and several summary judgment cases, none of which is applicable to the issue presented.

Because appellant's amended brief relies on evidence not in the record and fails to cite to “existing legal authority that can be applied to the facts of the case,” the brief fails. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896.

CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE