From Ex parte Lee, determined final week by the Texas Court docket of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Justice Tom Grey, joined by Justices Matt Johnson and Steven Lee Smith:
Allen Michael Lee is charged with one depend of aggravated sexual assault of a kid and two counts of sexual assault of a kid. Bail quantities have been set at $400,000 in complete for the three fees. He has not been capable of make bail. He filed a pre-trial utility for a writ of habeas corpus asking to both be launched or have bail diminished to $15,000 complete. After a listening to, the trial court docket denied Lee’s utility.
In a single subject, Lee contends the trial court docket abused its discretion in denying Lee’s request for a bail/bond discount. Particularly, he contends the preliminary bail set was excessively excessive and that the trial court docket abused its discretion by denying his utility with out a proof.
In presenting error to this Court docket, an appellant’s transient should comprise a transparent and concise argument of the contentions made with acceptable citations to authorities and to the file. That has not occurred on this case. Within the “Commonplace of Evaluation” and “Relevant Regulation” sections of his transient, Lee cites to the overall, relevant case regulation and statutes.
Nonetheless, in his “Argument” part, the place acceptable citations should be included, Lee cites to 5 instances to help the 2 sub-arguments to his subject. Solely three of these 5 instances are printed. Not one of the three printed instances cited really exist within the Southwest Reporter. Every quotation gives the reader a jump-cite into the physique of a special case that has nothing to do with the propositions cited by Lee. Two of the citations take the reader to instances from Missouri. Because the State factors out, even Texas instances with the identical names as these cited by Lee don’t correspond with the propositions relied upon. [A footnote lays out the details, quoting the State’s brief. -EV]
Additional, as once more famous by the State, the transient is devoid of any citations to the file. These deficiencies, though dropped at the Court docket’s and to Lee’s consideration by the State in its transient to this Court docket, have been neither contested nor corrected by Lee in any type of reply, amended, or supplemental transient.
{Primarily based upon a current Texas Bar CLE, “Have the Robotic Legal professionals Lastly Arrived? Sensible Considerations and Moral Dimension of ChatGPT,” introduced by John G. Browning of Spencer Fane LLP, it seems that at the least the “Argument” portion of the transient could have been ready by synthetic intelligence (AI). To keep away from this downside, Federal District Court docket Decide, Brantley Starr, requires the next certification for pleadings filed in instances pending in his court docket [see this post for the text, which I omit here -EV] ….
As a result of now we have no data relating to why the briefing is illogical, and since now we have addressed the difficulty raised on attraction, we resist the temptation to subject a present trigger order as a New York federal district choose did in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 3696209, 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94323 (S.D.N.Y., Might 4, 2023, order), or report the legal professional to the State Bar of Texas for a possible investigation for a violation of the State Bar guidelines.}
Thus, Lee inadequately briefs his sole subject on attraction. The failure to adequately transient a difficulty presents nothing for us to assessment, and we’re not required to make an appellant’s arguments for him. Accordingly, as a result of Lee inadequately briefs his sole subject, it presents nothing for our assessment and is overruled.
I attempted to succeed in the writer of Lee’s transient, Craig Alan Greening of the Greening Regulation Group; I’ll add his response if I get it. Because of Sam Cole for the pointer.
