Anthony Yuma Duncan v. the State of Texas

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed March 20, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00041-CR

ANTHONY YUMA DUNCAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F20-75167-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Anthony Yuma Duncan, pro se, appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting

him for failure to register as a sex offender. Appellant appears to argue he was not

required to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of a sex offense in 1992.

BRIEFING REQUIREMENTS

An appellant’s brief must comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. After appellant filed his initial brief,

this Court sent a letter to him. The letter informed appellant that his brief did not

comply with rule 38.1 because it failed to include an index of parties and counsel,
index of authorities, statement of the case, and a summary of the argument; further,

this Court informed appellant that the argument section of his brief did not cite to

authorities or to the record. Although appellant filed an amended brief, his amended

brief also does not comply with rule 38.1.

Rule 38.1 requires that a brief contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1(i). The brief must include, among other things, appropriate citations to

the applicable legal authorities and an explanation of how those authorities apply to

the facts of the case at hand. Margetis v. State, No. 05-14-00898-CR, 2015 WL

4600479, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 31, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (citing Walder v. State, 85 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002,

no pet.)). The briefing rules should be construed liberally and are “meant to acquaint

the court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable the court

to decide the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. However, the failure to present argument

or authorities in support of an assertion results in waiver of the issue. Margetis, 2015

WL 4600479, at *1 (citing State v. Gonzales, 855 S.W.2d 692, 697

(Tex.Crim.App.1993); Delapaz v. State, 228 S.W.3d 183, 197 n.20 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd); Kiss v. State, 316 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2009, pet. ref'd)). A pro se litigant must comply with the rules of procedure and is

not to be granted any special treatment because he has asserted his pro se rights. Id.

(citing Johnson v. State, 760 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (pro se litigant

–2–
is held to same standards as licensed attorney and must comply with applicable laws

and rules of procedure)).

Appellant’s brief does not include an index of legal authorities and also does

not include any citations to applicable legal authorities or any explanation about how

any legal authorities apply to the facts of the case. While appellant purports to

provide citations to the reporter’s record, the Court is not clear how he determined

those citations. Further, although appellant’s brief references Exhibits A, B, C, D,

and E, exhibits with those labels are not found in the record. We conclude appellant

failed to present any argument that will enable this Court to decide the case, and he

has waived any arguments he seeks to present.

MODIFICATIONS TO JUDGMENT

In a single cross-issue, the State requests we modify the judgment to show

appellant represented himself and was not represented by counsel at trial, appellant

pleaded guilty rather than not guilty to the charged offense, and court costs of $301.

We may modify a trial court’s written judgment if the necessary information to do

so is contained in the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d

26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

The judgment incorrectly states appellant was represented by counsel at trial

and he pleaded guilty to the charged offense; the record shows appellant represented

himself at trial and pleaded not guilty to the charged offense. Further, the judgment

–3–
assesses court costs of $286. However, the certified bill of costs shows the court

costs were $301. We sustain the State’s cross issue.

CONCLUSION
We modify the trial court’s judgment to state appellant represented himself at

trial, appellant pleaded not guilty, and court costs are $301. As modified, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE

230041f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ANTHONY YUMA DUNCAN, On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F20-75167-P.
No. 05-23-00041-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Partida-Kipness and Smith
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

Under the heading “Plea to Offense,” we DELETE the word “Guilty” and
ADD the words “Not Guilty.”
Under the heading “Attorney for Defendant,” we DELETE the words
“Allan Fishburn, Bar # 07049110” and ADD the words “Pro Se.”
Under the heading “Court Costs,” we DELETE the amount of $286 and
ADD the amount of $301.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 20th day of March, 2024.

–5–