Arhonda Jones v. American Real Estate Investment Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dismiss; Opinion Filed October 1, 2020 In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00546-CV ARHONDA JONES, Appellant V. AMERICAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06537-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle This is a forcible detainer action. Following a bench trial, the county court at law determined appellee American Real Estate Investment had a superior right to possess the property at issue. Appellant Arhonda Jones, proceeding pro se, requests that we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment in her favor. Because Ms. Jones failed to provide this Court with a brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss her appeal in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.7. A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Searcy v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 05-18-01098-CV, 2019 WL 5615149, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 30, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677–78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied)). Among other things, an appellant’s brief must contain an index of authorities indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, a concise statement of the facts supported by record references, a concise statement of all issues or points presented for review, and “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), (f), (g), (i). “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.” Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); see Crenshaw v. Hous. Auth. of City of Dallas, Tex.-Cliff Manor, No. 05-18-00143CV, 2019 WL 1486890, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 4, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). We are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error, for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position, or for doing legal research that might support a party’s contention. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. “Were we to do so, even for a pro se litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our rule as judges and become an advocate for that party.” Id. –2– We do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing when deciding whether an appellant’s brief is deficient. Searcy, 2019 WL 5615149, at *1. We do, however, examine briefs for compliance with the briefing rules. Id. If we can conclude a brief complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we submit the appeal for review and decision on the merits. Id. If we cannot, we may dismiss the appeal as we are authorized to do by our appellate rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96. Ms. Jones initially filed her appellate brief on October 16, 2019. On October 28, 2019, this Court sent Ms. Jones a letter informing her that her brief did not satisfy appellate procedural requirements and was deficient because, among other things, (1) the brief did not contain an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and did not indicate the pages of the brief where the authorities were cited; (2) the brief did not contain a concise statement of the facts supported by record references and concisely state all issues or points presented for review; and (3) the argument did not contain appropriate citations to authorities or the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), (f), (g), (i). This Court’s letter stated, “Failure to file an amended brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within 10 days of the date of this letter –3– may result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court.” Ms. Jones timely filed an amended brief on November 6, 2019.1 Like her initial brief, Ms. Jones’s amended brief is deficient. The amended brief’s index of authorities contains only two case citations, neither of which describes an existing case that could be found by this Court. Those two purported cases are described as appearing on pages 76, 79, and 80 of the 13-page amended brief. The brief contains no citation or reference to the record2 or any authority, does not state any issue describing or alleging error by the trial court, and contains no legal argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), (f), (g), (i). Because Ms. Jones failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after being given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96; Searcy, 2019 WL 5615149, at *2. /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE 190546F.P05 This Court abated this appeal on March 30, 2020, in light of the Supreme Court of Texas’s March 19, 2020 Fourth Emergency Order Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster, which temporarily stayed all eviction proceedings. On May 19, 2020, the supreme court ordered that eviction proceedings may resume. Pursuant to this Court’s abatement order, this appeal was automatically reinstated at that time. 1 No reporter’s record was filed in this appeal. After notice to Ms. Jones, this Court ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 2 –4– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ARHONDA JONES, Appellant No. 05-19-00546-CV On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06537B. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Chief Justice Burns and Justice Molberg participating. V. AMERICAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee American Real Estate Investment recover its costs of this appeal from appellant Arhonda Jones. Judgment entered this 1st day of October, 2020. –5–

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.