Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
PATRICIA L. WHEELER, APPELLANT
MARY ELIZABETH TURLEY AND BRENDA GRAY, 1 APPELLEE
Appeal from the 47th District Court Armstrong County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2534, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding
CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
C. PARKER, JUSTICE
Patricia L. Wheeler, appearing pro se, appeals the trial
court's September 13, 2017 Judgment for Title of
Possession, which awarded title to and possession of the
property located at 1980 Highway 287 in Goodnight, Texas to
appellee Mary Elizabeth Turley. We affirm the judgment of the
and Turley entered into a lease-to-own agreement in which
Wheeler agreed to pay Turley $400 per month for the property
until the purchase price of $50, 000 was paid. Wheeler made
two $400 payments before issues arose between the parties.
Subsequently, Turley filed a suit for eviction of Wheeler due
to nonpayment under the agreement. In response, Wheeler filed
the instant suit for real estate fraud, conspiracy, illegal
eviction, defamation, harassment, libel, and mental anguish.
Through her petition, Wheeler makes several different claims
relating to who is the rightful owner of the property. Turley
dismissed her suit for eviction and filed a counterclaim for
eviction in Wheeler's action. After a bench trial, the
trial court entered its September 13, 2017 Judgment for Title
of Possession. From this judgment, Wheeler filed the instant
filed her appellate brief on January 3, 2018. This Court
rejected her brief for failing to comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. We
notified Wheeler of the rejection of her brief by letter
dated January 8, 2018. In this letter, we specified that
Wheeler's brief failed to include "references to the
appellate record and citations to legal authorities" as
required by Rule 38.1(g) and (i). On January 18, 2018,
Wheeler filed her "corrected" appellate brief.
However, Wheeler's corrected brief wholly fails to make
reference to the appellate record or to cite legal
to hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed
attorneys and they must comply with all applicable rules of
procedure. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A relaxation of the
rules in favor of pro se litigants would provide such parties
with an unfair advantage over parties who are represented by
counsel. Id. Consequently, we cannot make allowances
or apply different standards because a litigant acts without
the advice of counsel. Id.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), a brief submitted
by appellant must 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). An
appellate issue unsupported by argument or citation to the
record or by appropriate legal authority presents nothing for
our review. Blankinship v. Brown, 399 S.W.3d 303,
307 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2013, pet. denied).
"Failure to cite legal authority or to provide
substantive analysis of the legal issues presented results in
waiver of the complaint." In re Estate of
Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2010, no pet.); see Smith, 541 S.W.3d at 263. It is
not appropriate for an appellate court to attempt to re-draft
and articulate what it believes an appellant intended to
raise as an issue on appeal. Berardinelli v.
Pickels, No. 05-12-01390-CV, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 11728,
at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.). "An appellate court has no duty—or even
right—to perform an independent review of the record
and applicable law to determine whether there was
error." Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. Performing
such an independent review would require us to abandon our
role as neutral adjudicators and, instead, become advocates
for that party. Id. We have no discretion to
consider an issue not raised by appellant in her brief, even
if the ends of justice would require us to do so.
have indicated above, Wheeler's "corrected"
brief does not contain any references to the appellate record
or citations to legal authority. This remains the case even
after this Court rejected appellant's initial brief and
specifically notified her that she is required by Rule
38.1(i) to cite legal authority in support of her appellate
issues and to provide references to the appellate record. Due
to Wheeler's failure to comply with the requirements of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, she has waived her
issues on appeal. Id. (citing Fredonia State
Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284
(Tex. 1994)). Concluding that Wheeler has presented nothing
for our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 Wheeler's original petition
brought claims against both Turley and Gray. However, the
judgment appeared to resolve only Wheeler's claims
brought against Turley. We remanded this matter to the trial
court to clarify whether the judgment was intended to be
final and appealable. See Wheeler v. Turley, No.
07-17-00362-CV, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 1152, at *2-3 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo Feb. 15, 2019, order) (per curiam). On
May 6, the trial court entered an order severing all claims
brought by Wheeler against Gray into a separate cause number
and specified that the trial court's prior judgment
"constitute a final, appealable order disposing of all
claims between Patricia L. Wheeler and Mary Elizabeth
 Wheeler's brief contains a
"Table of Authorities" that identifies "real
estate law," "Texas Deceptive Trade Act and
Penalties," "Texas Property Code Rules and
Penalties," "Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,"
and "United States Constitution and Civil Rights."
However, Wheeler makes no effort to provide any analysis
regarding how these general areas of law might apply in this
case and we may not craft such arguments for her. See
Smith v. Smith, 541 S.W.3d 251, 263 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citation to
"Chapter 38.001" of the ...