Taylor, Henry Earl
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 152
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Henry Earl Taylor was sentenced after revocation of deferred-adjudication; his notice of appeal was due December 20, 2010.
- As an incarcerated pro se appellant, Taylor placed his notice in the prison mail slot on December 17 and later swore to that fact.
- The First Court of Appeals received the notice on December 21 (one day after the due date) and forwarded it to the trial-court clerk; the trial court stamped it December 27 (within the 10-day mailbox-rule grace period).
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the mailbox rule did not apply because the record did not affirmatively show the notice had been addressed to the trial-court clerk (or properly addressed).
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held that forwarding by the court of appeals pursuant to rule 25.2(c)(1) and receipt by the trial court within the mailbox-rule period made the notice timely; dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pro se incarcerated defendant's notice of appeal is timely under the mailbox rule when mailed timely to the court of appeals, forwarded by that court to the trial-court clerk, and received by the trial court within the 10-day mailbox window | Taylor: mailbox rule applies because he deposited the notice with prison mail before the deadline and it reached the trial court within 10 days; the appellate clerk was required to forward it | State: mailbox rule inapplicable because record lacks an envelope or other proof that the notice was properly addressed to the proper clerk; receipt by the court of appeals does not confer jurisdiction | Court: Notice was timely under the mailbox rule; rule 25.2(c)(1) required the appellate clerk to forward the notice and receipt by the trial court within the 10-day grace period invoked jurisdiction; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discusses when a notice of appeal is filed and mailbox-rule application)
- Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (envelope sufficiently specific for mailbox rule even if not precisely addressed)
- Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (timely notice of appeal is required to invoke appellate jurisdiction)
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (prisoner mailbox rule principles and limitations)
- Few v. State, 230 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appeal rights should not depend on technicalities)
- Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2007) (reasonable inference/presumption that pro se prisoner's mailing was timely when clerk received it shortly after deadline)
- Williams v. T.D.C.J.-I.D., 142 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2004) (presumption that filing was timely absent contrary evidence)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (prisoner mailbox rule rationale regarding prisoner control over filing process)