Castillo, Ex Parte Mario Amaro
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 816
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Mario Ama-ro Castillo pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor assault—family violence in 2006 and completed supervision in 2008.
- In 2011, Castillo filed an 11.072 habeas corpus in county court alleging the original plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance for improper deportation admonitions; trial court denied relief.
- Appellant’s notice of appeal was due April 29, 2011, with a 15‑day extension available to May 16 under TRAP 26.3.
- Castillo filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension on May 17, 2011, using Federal Express instead of the U.S. Postal Service.
- Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, relying on TRAP 9.2(b)(1)(A), which requires timely mailing via the U.S. Postal Service.
- The Texas Supreme Court majority held that the mailbox rule applies only to USPS deliveries; Federal Express delivery did not satisfy the rule, so the appeal was untimely; the dissent would have held FedEx timely and preserved jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9.2(b)(1)(A) extends to private couriers | Castillo argues mailbox rule includes private couriers like FedEx | State argues rule plain language covers USPS only | Rule 9.2(b)(1)(A) applies only to USPS |
| Whether use of a private courier is a jurisdictional defect or a procedural irregularity | Dissent argues delivery by FedEx is a harmless procedural defect | Majority treats non-USPS delivery as jurisdictional failure | Majority holds it is a jurisdictional defect; no jurisdiction to entertain appeal |
| Impact of extensions and natural reading of timely filing under TRAP 26.3 | Timeliness would be satisfied if USPS delivery occurred within extension period | Rule 26.3 requires timely mailing via USPS within extension period; FedEx fails | Extension provisions do not overcome USPS mailbox rule deficiency |
| Judicial interpretation of mailbox rule as time evolves | Rule should adapt to private couriers given reliability of modern carriers | Rules should be applied as written until amended | Rule 9.2(b)(1)(A) remains USPS-only; no jurisdiction with FedEx |
| Whether the decision aligns with liberal construction of appellate rules to preserve appeal | Harmless procedural defect should not destroy right to appeal | Harmless defect analysis does not override clear rule text | Court sustains strict application of rule text; dismisses for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185 (1884) (presumption of receipt based on post office delivery)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (timely notice of appeal required to invoke jurisdiction)
- Few v. State, 230 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (liberal construction to avoid dismissing appeals for harmless procedural defects)
- Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (avoid elevating form over substance in filing rules)
- Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (jurisdictional effect of timely notice of appeal)
- Petrulis v. Commissioner, 938 F.2d 78 (7th Cir. 1991) (mailbox rule limited to USPS; private carriers not covered)
- Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691 (11th Cir. 1985) (section 7502 Timely-Filing applies to USPS)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (mailbox/publication timing in filing)
- Jamar v. Patterson, 868 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. 1993) (filing deemed timely when tendered to the clerk)
- Carruth v. Carpenter, 806 S.W.2d 959 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1991) (appellate court lacked jurisdiction when using private courier)