Opinion
No. 10-15-00394-CR
03-10-2016
FREDERICK-WILLIAM: VAN HORN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2 Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. WRIT 1001
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Frederick-William: Van Horn has filed an appeal of the denial of a writ of prohibition. The Court struck Van Horn's first brief. The Court advised Van Horn that because his first brief flagrantly violated the briefing rules that it "must be 'redrawn in its entirety.'" Van Horn v. State, 10-15-00394-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 14, 2016, ord.); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). The Court warned Van Horn that "if another brief that does not comply with this rule is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief." Id.
Van Horn has filed a new brief. The Court has reviewed the 24 pages filed as Van Horn's brief. It does not comply with the rules on briefing. The Court will not endeavor to explain or list or even reference all the deficiencies in Van Horn's brief.
It appears that Van Horn wants this Court to dismiss two or more traffic citations issued in Waxahachie, Texas. It is sufficient to say that by reading only the brief, the Court has to speculate what those traffic citations might be for and how the current proceeding has found its way to us. By working backwards though the record, including a lengthy petition with many exhibits, it is possible to tell that prior to the disposition of the citations in municipal court, Van Horn filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the County Court at Law seeking to obtain an order prohibiting the prosecution of the citations in municipal court. The County Court at Law denied the petition, so Van Horn has attempted to appeal the County Court at Law's denial of that petition.
The fundamental problem with the brief is that it does not present legal arguments, with citations to legal authority and the facts as developed and presented in the record, as to why the County Court at Law's decision is legally wrong and how we have the jurisdiction and the authority under the current procedural development of this case to address those issues. As such, while we may be able to go through the record and the brief and identify possible legal arguments, that is not our proper role in an adversarial judicial system. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (Courts are not responsible for identifying possible error; searching the record for favorable facts; or doing the legal research for the party.). We are only to address the legal arguments made by the parties and we can only address them if they are properly preserved and presented, a process that begins in the trial courts. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; 38; id. ("Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other."). If we go beyond that and make Van Horn's legal arguments for him, we have abdicated our role as an independent tribunal and become his advocate. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 385. And to do so would give Van Horn an advantage as a pro se party by having the Court identify the legal issues and make his arguments for him. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Baughman v. Baughman, 65 S.W.3d 309, 312 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied). This we cannot do.
Because the second brief filed by Van Horn is also woefully deficient from a proper brief, it too is stricken. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). As we warned Van Horn, we will proceed to decide the appeal as if no brief has been filed. Id.
We treat this appeal as if no brief has been filed. Pursuant to Rule 44.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and because Van Horn was warned that this appeal would proceed as if no brief has been filed, it is subject to dismissal under our inherent authority. See Ealy v. State, 222 S.W.3d 744, 745 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); Peralta v. State, 82 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Stavinoha v. State, 82 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). The Court concludes this appeal was taken for the purpose of delay, and dismisses the appeal without further notice, under the Court's inherent authority, for want of prosecution. Id.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Brief stricken
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 10, 2016
Do not Publish
[CR25]