Andrew Anderson v. the State of Texas
05-19-01492-CR
Tex. App.Jun 30, 2021Background
- Appellant Andrew Anderson mailed a pro se notice of appeal postmarked November 4; the filing deadline was November 6.
- The trial-court clerk did not formally file the notice until December 2, beyond the deadline.
- Texas R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1) (the "mailbox rule") deems timely any document "received" by the proper clerk within ten days after the deadline if (A) sent to the proper clerk, (B) properly addressed/stamped, and (C) deposited on or before the last day for filing.
- The judicially created "prisoner mailbox rule" (Campbell/Houston line) treats a pro se inmate's pleading as filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing.
- The majority held the mailbox rule did not apply because Anderson addressed his notice to the trial court ("Dallas County Court #265") rather than the "proper clerk," so the notice was untimely and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.
- The dissent argues that (1) the prisoner mailbox rule should govern and (2) mailing to the trial court should count as mailing to the proper clerk (citing Texas Supreme Court precedent in Stokes), so the notice was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 9.2(b)(1)’s mailbox rule apply when a notice is addressed to the trial court (not specifically to the clerk)? | Addressing the notice to the trial court suffices as sending to the proper clerk; postmarked Nov 4, within the grace period. | Rule 9.2(b)(1) requires sending to the proper clerk; addressing the court is not adequate, so rule not triggered. | Majority: Mailbox rule not triggered because notice wasn’t sent to the proper clerk; filing untimely and appellate court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Does the prisoner mailbox rule render an inmate’s notice "filed" as of the date submitted to prison authorities, and is it subject to Rule 9.2(b)(1)’s requirements? | Prisoner mailbox rule deems the filing date when inmate delivers to prison authorities; that date should control and make the appeal timely. | Prisoner mailbox rule remains subject to Rule 9.2(b)(1)’s requirements (including sending to the proper clerk). | Court: Prisoner mailbox rule is subject to Rule 9.2(b)(1); because appellant did not send to the proper clerk, rule does not save the filing. |
| Does Stokes v. Aberdeen (Texas Supreme Court) compel treating mailing to the court as mailing to the clerk? | Yes; Stokes construed the predecessor rule to allow mailing to the proper court to satisfy the rule and would support deeming Anderson’s filing timely. | Majority distinguishes or declines to follow Stokes’ construction in this context. | Dissent would follow Stokes and deem the filing timely; the majority did not adopt that approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (recognizes prisoner mailbox rule for pro se inmate filings)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (federal habeas rule deeming inmate filings filed upon delivery to prison authorities)
- Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co., 917 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. 1996) (Texas Supreme Court construed mailing to the court as mailing to the clerk for predecessor rule)
- Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2007) (Texas Supreme Court decision recognizing special rules for inmate litigants)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (another Texas case addressing inmate filing rules)