Otis Minafee v. Edwin Shields Appeal from 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 30, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00343-CV OTIS MINAFEE, Appellant V. EDWIN SHIELDS, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15125 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Francis, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Pro se appellant Otis Minafee has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his claim. After appellant filed his brief, we notified him that his brief was deficient and instructed him to file an amended brief. Appellant filed an amended brief but failed to correct the noted deficiencies. Appellant was given another opportunity to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended brief by August 14, 2017. As of today’s date, appellant has not complied. A civil litigant has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2010, no pet.). The right of self-representation on appeal carries with it the duty to adhere to the rules of appellate procedure. See id. Pro se appellants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. See Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Our rules of appellate procedure have specific requirements for the contents of all briefs accepted by the courts. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38. Among other requirements, the rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints; provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument showing why their complaints are meritorious in fact and in law; cite and apply applicable law; and provide appropriate references to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f-i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. When determining whether a particular brief is deficient, we do not adhere to rigid rules, but rather examine the brief for compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Only after receiving adequate briefing may we go on to review the merits of the appeal. Id. If an appellant fails to provide adequate briefing, we may dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96. In his brief, appellant identifies the case as a suit for damages and the issues as perjury and breach of contract. Beyond that, appellant simply attached the parties’ agreement, the judgment, and a few other documents. Appellant’s amended brief fails to provide a concise statement of facts supported by record references or argument with appropriate citations to the record and legal authorities. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). Without adequate briefing, especially the lack of support by reference to the record and authorities, appellant is not entitled to judicial review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96. Because appellant was given the opportunity to file an amended brief correcting noted deficiencies but has failed to do so, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 170343F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT OTIS MINAFEE, Appellant No. 05-17-00343-CV On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15125. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Francis and Stoddart participating. V. EDWIN SHIELDS, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered August 30, 2017. –3–
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.
