In the Estate of Robert Flores, DeceasedAppeal from Probate Court No 2 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00393-CV IN THE ESTATE OF ROBERT FLORES, Deceased From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-PC-0516 Honorable Gladys B. Burwell, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 20, 2013 DISMISSED Pro se appellant Oscar Flores s brief was originally due on July 26, 2013. This court granted a first extension of time to file the brief until September 9, 2013. In our September 10, 2013 order, we granted Appellant s second motion for extension of time to file the brief until October 24, 2013, and we warned Appellant NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. On October 24, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that flagrantly failed to comply with Rule 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (Appellant s brief requirements). On October 25, 2013, we notified Appellant that his brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 because, inter alia, it failed to include Identity of Parties and Counsel, Table of Contents, Index of Authorities, Statement of the Case, Any Statement Regarding Oral Argument, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument, Prayer, or Appendix. See id. No part of the brief contained any 04-13-00393-CV citations to the record. See id. R. 38.1(g), (i). The brief failed to list or cite any authorities to support Appellant s arguments. See id. The brief contained no certificate of service. See id. R. 9.5(e). Moreover, the brief contained copies of numerous documents that were not identified as being taken from the appellate record. In our October 25, 2013 order we struck Appellant s brief and ordered Appellant to file an amended brief not later than November 4, 2013. See id. R. 38.9(a). We warned Appellant that if the amended brief failed to comply with our order, we could strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief. See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely file a brief); id. R. 42.3 (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with an order); Sheffield v. Seidler, 04-03-00554-CV, 2004 WL 839653, at *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio Apr. 21, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing an appeal for failure to file an amended brief as ordered). Appellant did not file an amended brief as ordered. Instead, Appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to file the brief. Appellant s motion for extension of time is denied. This appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c). Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant Oscar Flores. PER CURIAM -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
