Ex parte Lee

673 S.W.3d 755

EX PARTE Allen Michael LEE

No. 10-22-00281-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2023

Craig Alan Greening, The Greening Law Group PC, College Station, for Appellant.

Douglas Howell III, Brazos County Asst. District Attorney, Bryan, Philip McLemore, Jarvis J. Parsons, Brazos County District Attorney, Bryan, for State of Texas.

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice Allen Michael Lee is charged with one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of sexual assault of a child. Bail amounts were set at $400,000 in total for the three charges. He has not been able to make bail. He filed a pre-trial application for a writ of habeas corpus asking to either be released or have bail reduced to $15,000 total. After a hearing, the trial court denied Lee's application.

In one issue, Lee contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying Lee's request for a bail/bond reduction. Specifically, he contends the initial bail set was excessively high and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his application without an explanation.

In presenting error to this Court, an appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument of the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) ; Neville v. State , 622 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, no pet.). That has not occurred in this case. In the "Standard of Review" and "Applicable Law" sections of his brief, Lee cites to the general, applicable case law and statutes. However, in his "Argument" section, where appropriate citations must be included, Lee cites to five cases to support the two sub-arguments to his issue. Only three of those five cases are published. None of the three published cases cited actually exist in the Southwest Reporter. Each citation provides the reader a jump-cite into the body of a different case that has nothing to do with the propositions cited by Lee. Two of the citations take the reader to cases from Missouri. As the State points out, even Texas cases with the same names as those cited by Lee do not correspond with the propositions relied upon.¹ Further, as again noted by the State, the brief is devoid of any citations to the record. These deficiencies, although brought to the Court's and to Lee's attention by the State in its brief to this Court, were neither contested nor corrected by Lee in any kind of reply, amended, or supplemental brief.² Thus, Lee inadequately briefs his sole issue on appeal.

The failure to adequately brief an issue presents nothing for us to review, and we are not required to make an appellant's arguments for him. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) ; Lucio v. State , 351 S.W.3d 878, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Busby v. State , 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ); see also Neville v. State , 622 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, no pet.). Accordingly, because Lee inadequately briefs his sole issue, it presents nothing for our review and is overruled.

Having overruled Lee's sole issue, the trial court's Order Denying Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed on July 14, 2022, is affirmed.

1 The text of the State's footnote 8 which challenges the authority cited by Lee states:

Appellant only cites three published cases in support of his argument and represents to this Court that they stand for the propositions that a trial court must provide an explanation for its decision and it is an abuse of discretion when the trial court does not do so. (Appellant's Brief at 9-12). However, none of those cases exist:

1. Ex parte Vasquez , 248 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) cites to the tenth page of In re Rodriguez , 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.), a mandamus case arising in the context of a divorce proceeding. (Appellant's Brief at 9). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not published an opinion with that caption since 1986, which was an application for writ of habeas corpus alleging applicant's sentences were illegally cumulated. SeeEx parte Vasquez , 712 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

2. Ex parte Clayton , 592 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) cites to the seventh page of M.H. Siegfried Real Estate, Inc. v. Renfrow , 592 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. App. 1979), an appeal from a Missouri trial court's denial of an injunction and damages related to a real property dispute. (Applicant's Brief at 9). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not publish an opinion in 1979 captioned Ex parte Clayton and has only published two cases with that caption. SeeEx parte Clayton , 171 Tex.Crim. 398, 350 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1961) ; Ex parte Clayton , 51 Tex.Crim. 553, 103 S.W. 630 (Tex.Crim.App. 1907).

3. Ex parte Martinez , 340 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) cites to the fifth page of Cochran v. Cochran , 340 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. App. 2011), an appeal from a Missouri circuit court's judgment dissolving a marriage. (Appellant's Brief at 10, 11). Ex parte Martinez , 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) is the only published opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2011 with that caption and is an application for writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance in applicant's trial for capital murder.

In addition to Appellant's inappropriate citations to authorities, his brief does not contain a separate Statement of the Case; does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issue presented; does not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the

...