Anderson, Andrew
PD-0279-20
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Appellant Andrew Anderson mailed a pro se notice of appeal that was postmarked November 4; the appellate filing deadline was November 6, but the clerk did not formally file the notice until December 2.
- Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1) (the mailbox rule) treats a document received within 10 days after the deadline as timely if: (A) it was sent to the proper clerk by USPS or commercial carrier, (B) properly addressed and stamped, and (C) deposited on or before the last day for filing.
- The majority held the mailbox rule did not apply because the notice was addressed to the trial court (Dallas County Court No. 265) rather than the “proper clerk,” so the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction and the notice was untimely.
- The dissent argues the prisoner mailbox rule (from Campbell/Houston v. Lack line of cases) deems pro se inmate filings filed when delivered to prison authorities, and the postmark shows timely mailing on November 4.
- The dissent relies on Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., where the Texas Supreme Court construed the predecessor rule to treat mailing to the proper court as sufficient to satisfy mailing to the “proper clerk.”
- The dissent would therefore find the notice timely either because the prisoner mailbox rule makes the filing effective upon delivery to prison authorities or because mailing to the trial court satisfies Rule 9.2(b)(1)(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9.2(b)(1) applies when a notice is mailed to the trial court rather than the named clerk | Anderson: mailing to the trial court (postmarked Nov 4) satisfies the rule; prisoner mailbox rule makes it filed when delivered to prison authorities | State: rule requires mailing to the proper clerk; addressed to the trial court is insufficient, so notice untimely | Majority: mailbox rule does not apply because notice was not sent to the proper clerk; notice untimely; Dissent: would treat mailing to the trial court as sufficient and deem timely |
| Whether the prisoner mailbox rule is subject to Rule 9.2(b)(1)’s requirements (e.g., sent to proper clerk) | Anderson/Dissent: prisoner rule should deem filings filed on delivery to prison authorities; and even if subject to Rule 9.2, requirements were satisfied here | State/Majority: prisoner mailbox rule remains subject to Rule 9.2’s requirements, including mailing to the proper clerk | Majority: prisoner mailbox rule is subject to Rule 9.2; because requirement not met, filing untimely; Dissent: either prisoner rule or Stokes makes filing timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holds pro se inmate pleadings are deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., 917 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. 1996) (construed predecessor rule to treat mailing to the proper court as mailing to the proper clerk)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (recognized prisoner mailbox rule at federal level)
- Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2007) (addresses equitable considerations for pro se inmate filings)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (discusses inmate filing issues in Texas jurisprudence)