Anderson, Andrew
PD-0279-20
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Appellant Andrew Anderson pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, received eight years' imprisonment after a plea and the trial court certified his right to appeal.
- No motion for new trial was filed; the deadline to file a notice of appeal was November 6, 2019.
- Appellant mailed a pro se letter requesting appeal from jail; the envelope was postmarked November 4, 2019 but addressed to “Dallas County Court #265” (the convicting court), not to the district clerk.
- The district clerk did not file-stamp the letter until December 2, 2019; the Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
- Central legal question: whether the 10-day mailbox-rule grace (Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1)(A)) or the prisoner mailbox rule applies when the inmate’s envelope omits the words “district clerk” and is addressed to the trial court instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mailing a notice addressed to the convicting court (omitting “district clerk”) qualifies for the 10‑day mailbox-rule grace | Anderson: minor addressing imperfection should be construed liberally (Moore); the envelope showed the court and cause number so it was intended for the clerk | State: Rule 9.2(b) requires mailing to the "proper clerk"; an envelope addressed to the trial court is not to the clerk or an agent, so Rule 9.2 not met | Court: No. Rule 9.2(b) requires mailing to the proper clerk; addressing to the trial court did not satisfy the rule; notice untimely and appeal dismissed |
| Whether the prisoner-mailbox rule or an evidentiary abatement could salvage the untimely filing (showing receiving dept. got it within 10 days) | Anderson: equitable prisoner-mailbox protections and abatement to develop evidence of timely receipt should apply; he lacked control over county mailroom | State: prisoner-mailbox doctrine is subject to Rule 9.2(b) requirements; record supplementation cannot create new facts—proper vehicle would be habeas corpus | Court: Denied. Campbell incorporated prisoner-mailbox doctrine into Rule 9.2 but still requires compliance with Rule 9.2(b); abatement/supplementation to create a new record was not permitted here; habeas is the proper route |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (permitted mailbox rule where envelope sufficiently identified intended clerk/receiving department)
- Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (address held "sufficiently specific" when document reached proper place under mailbox rule)
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applied prisoner-mailbox rule but required compliance with Rule 9.2(b))
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (federal rule treating pro se inmate filings as filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2007) (Texas Supreme Court applied mailbox-rule principles where inmate properly addressed filing)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (Texas Supreme Court: inmate not penalized for clerk/postal error when inmate complied with filing rules)