Andrew Anderson v. the State of Texas
05-19-01492-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Appellant Andrew Anderson, a pro se inmate, mailed a notice of appeal from the Dallas County jail; envelope postmarked November 4 and the notice was due November 6.
- The envelope was addressed to: “Dallas County Court #265 133 N Riverfront blvd. Dallas Tx 75207” (i.e., the trial court/courthouse suite), not explicitly to the district clerk.
- The district clerk did not file the notice until December 2. The Court majority held the notice untimely; Judge Walker filed a dissent.
- The dispute centers on the mailbox rule and the prisoner-mailbox rule (Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1); Campbell v. State).
- Key factual point in dissent: the district clerk’s office for the 265th District Court is in the same office suite/Frank Crowley Courts Building where the envelope was directed, and courthouse receiving staff handle both court and clerk mail.
Issues
| Issue | Anderson | State | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the envelope was sent to the “proper clerk” / was “properly addressed” under the mailbox rule | Addressed to the 265th District Court at the courthouse where the district clerk’s office sits; courthouse receiving staff act as agent and would route mail to the clerk — thus properly addressed and sent to the proper clerk | Envelope addressed to the trial court (not to the clerk) so it was not properly addressed or sent to the proper clerk; mailbox rule therefore does not apply | Dissent: envelope was properly addressed/sent to the proper clerk and should be treated as timely; majority reached the opposite conclusion (untimely) |
| Whether timeliness is measured by receipt by prison authorities (prisoner-mailbox rule) or by the clerk’s filing date | Under prisoner-mailbox rule, filing is deemed when delivered to prison authorities; postmark Nov. 4 indicates delivery to prison authorities on or before that date, so notice was timely | Relies on clerk’s filing date (Dec. 2) to find notice untimely beyond the 10-day mailbox window | Dissent: receipt by prison authorities (as shown by Nov. 4 postmark) controls and makes the notice timely; majority relied on clerk filing date and found untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (prisoner-mailbox rule: inmate’s pro se document is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (mail delivered to courthouse receiving department may be considered in custody of the proper clerk under an agency theory)
- Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., 917 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. 1996) (mailing to the correct courthouse address can be conditionally effective as mailing to the clerk)
- Williams v. State, 603 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (appellate rules should be construed reasonably and liberally to avoid losing appeals on technicalities)