In the Interest of J.S.B., a Child v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00308-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 251st District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 63,168C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding

April 30, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Devin Little Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this appeal from the trial

court’s order in a suit modifying the parent-child relationship. We affirm the order of the

trial court.

In a prior letter, this Court informed Johnson that her brief failed to comply with the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. We identified deficiencies in

the brief and ordered Johnson to file a corrected brief. Although Johnson has filed an

amended brief, it too fails to conform to Rule 38.1. It does not include a statement of facts
supported by references to the appellate record or substantive argument adequately

supported by citations to legal authorities. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

While we construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs, we nonetheless hold pro

se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with

applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181,

184–85 (Tex. 1978). To present an issue to an appellate court, a party’s brief must,

among other things, present a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with

appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Failure to cite

legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented constitutes a

waiver of that issue on appeal. Handy v. 1100 Reinli St. LLC, No. 07-23-00025-CV, 2023

Tex. App. LEXIS 5629, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 31, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Johnson’s brief does not identify any legal issues presented; rather, the five “issues

presented” consist of copies of two court orders, a copy of Johnson’s apartment lease, a

pay stub, and J.S.B.’s birth certificate. The argument portion of her brief can be

summarized as Johnson’s declaration that she is capable of caring for J.S.B. Her

argument does not provide citation to appropriate authorities or the record, nor does it

assert any error by the trial court. We conclude that Johnson has failed to adequately

brief her complaints and therefore presents nothing for our review. Her issues on appeal

are waived. See id.

We note that in her prayer, Johnson alleges that she “wasn’t notified of the court

hearing of modification on March 2, 2023.” However, March 2, 2023, was the date that

J.S.B.’s paternal grandmother filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. The

2
record contains a copy of the officer’s return indicating personal service of the citation

and petition on Johnson on June 15, 2023. The trial court’s final order was signed on

August 2, 2023.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Judy C. Parker
Justice

3