X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant’s brief was due in this accelerated appeal on April 14, 2004. On April 21, 2004, the clerk of court made a courtesy call to appellant’s counsel to inform her that the brief was past due. In response, counsel sent this court a letter, stating her belief that accelerated appeals do not require a brief and that a sworn record may suffice. HOLDING:The appellant is ordered to file a motion for extension of time to file the brief within ten days from the date of this opinion. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3 states: “In lieu of the clerk’s record, the appellate court may hear an accelerated appeal on the original papers forwarded by the trial court or on sworn and uncontroverted copies of those papers. The appellate court may allow the case to be submitted without briefs.” Rule 28.3 was formerly designated as rule 42(c). In Lagrone v. John Robert Powers Sch. Inc., 841 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. App. � Dallas 1992, no writ) (Enoch, C.J.), Justice Enoch explained the purpose and correct application of Rule 42(c). In that case, instead of filing a brief, the appellants filed a motion to give priority to the appeal on the day their brief was due. The court held: “[T]he clear intent of section 42(c) is to allow the appellate court the opportunity to reach the merits of a case as soon as possible by dispensing with the time required for the parties to prepare briefs. It is not to allow an appellant to wait out the entire briefing time and then to announce on the brief-due date, for the first time, that it does not intend to file a brief.” Since the language of Rule 42(c) was carried forward into Rule 28.3, the court concludes that the intent of Rule 42(c) was carried forward as well. Therefore, the purpose of Rule 28.3 is to grant appellate courts the flexibility to expedite appeals by dispensing with the necessity of a formal record or briefing. As for briefs, the rule provides, “The appellate court may allow the case to be submitted without briefs.” This language clearly gives the court, not the appellant, the discretion to dispense with briefing. An appellant who believes that briefs are unnecessary may not simply announce its decision not to file a brief. Instead, an appellant must file a proper motion, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, and must demonstrate why briefs should not be required. When a court does not have the benefit of briefing or argument, it must step out of its appropriate role as neutral arbiter and into the unnatural role of advocate. The court exercises discretion to dispense with briefing only in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, counsel did not file a proper motion to dispense with briefing. She did not even notify the court that no brief would be filed until after the brief was past due. Obviously, this did not serve to expedite the appeal. And counsel has not attempted to demonstrate that this case presents extraordinary circumstances that call for dispensing with briefs. OPINION:Susan Larsen, J.; Larsen, McClure and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.