## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 1 4 2 7

- 1 1

E X P A R T E M A R I O A M A R O C A S T I L L O

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E S E C O N D C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

D E N T O N C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

M E Y E R S

, P R IC E

, W O M A C K

, K E A S L E R

, a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. A L C A L A

, J

. , f i l e d a

d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h J O H N S O N

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t f

i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o n e d a y l a t e

. H i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a n d m o t i o n f o r

e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e w e r e p i c k e d u p b y F e d e r a l E x p r e s s a f t e r b u s i n e s s h o u r s o n t h e l a s t d a y o f

f i l i n g a n d d e l i v e r e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e n e x t d a y

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d i s m i s s e d h i s a p p e a l

f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n

. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e 1

Ex parte Castillo , No. 02-11-00172- CR, 2011 W L 2436771, *1 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 1

J une 16, 2011) ( not desig nated f or publication).Castillo P ag e 2

o f T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e ( T R A P ) 9

. 2 ( b )

, w h i c h e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e s t i m e l y

m a i l i n g v i a t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

, i s a n t i q u a t e d a n d s h o u l d b e r e a d t o i n c l u d e

p r i v a t e c o u r i e r s

, s u c h a s F e d e r a l E x p r e s s

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p l a i n

, u n a m b i g u o u s 2

l a n g u a g e o f t h e r u l e r e q u i r e s t i m e l y m a i l i n g w i t h t h e U

. S

. P o s t a l S e r v i c e

, n o t a p r i v a t e

c o u r i e r

. U n t i l a n d u n l e s s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s a n d t h i s C o u r t c h a n g e t h e l a n g u a g e

o f R u l e 9

. 2 ( b )

, t h e “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e a p p l i e s o n l y t o d o c u m e n t s

d e l i v e r e d t o t h e U

. S

. P o s t a l S e r v i c e

.

I

.

A p p e l l a n t p l e d n o l o c o n t e n d e r e t o t h e m i s d e m e a n o r o f f e n s e o f a s s a u l t

– f

a m i l y

v i o l e n c e i n 2 0 0 6

. H e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e d h i s s e n t e n c e o f t w e n t y m o n t h s o f c o m m u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n i n 2 0 0 8

. T h r e e y e a r s l a t e r

, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n 1 1

. 0 7 2 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 3

h a b e a s c o r p u s i n t h e c o u n t y c o u r t

. H e a l l e g e d t h a t h i s o r i g i n a l p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a r y b a s e d

o n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l b e c a u s e h e w a s n o t p r o p e r l y a d m o n i s h e d o f t h e

d e p o r t a t i o n c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h a t p l e a

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d r e l i e f o n M a r c h 3 0

, 2 0 1 1

.

A p p e l l a n t ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s d u e o n A p r i l 2 9

, 2 0 1 1

. B u t t h a t d u e d a t e c o u l d b e

e x t e n d e d f

o r a n a d d i t i o n a l f

i f t e e n d a y s

– u n t i l M a y 1 6 t h

– b y f i l i n g a r e q u e s t f

o r a n e x t e n s i o n 4

Appellant’s g round for

revie w states, “T he cour

t of appe als dec ision incorrec tly 2

dismiss ed petitioner’ s appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.”

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 11.072. 3

The fif teenth day

afte r April 29th was Ma

y 14th, but because that day was a Saturday

, 4

the dea dline was e x tended a nother two da

y s to Monday , May

16th. See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 4.2(a).Castillo P ag e 3

o f t i m e u n d e r T R A P 2 6

. 3

. A p p e l l a n t f i l e d b o t h a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a n d a m o t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n

o f t i m e o n M a y 1 7

, 2 0 1 1

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e f e r r e d t o T R A P 9

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) w h i c h s t a t e s

t h a t a d o c u m e n t r e c e i v e d w i t h i n t e n d a y s a f t e r t h e f i l i n g d e a d l i n e i s c o n s i d e r e d t i m e l y i f i t

w a s s e n t t o t h e p r o p e r c l e r k v i a t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t u s e t h e 5

U

. S

. P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. I n s t e a d

, h e “ p r o v i d e d i n t e r n e t p r i n t

- o u t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l w a s p i c k e d u p f o r d e l i v e r y b y F e d e r a l E x p r e s s a t 6 : 4 9 p

. m

. o n M a y 1 6

, 2 0 1 1

, a n d

d e l i v e r e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k o n M a y 1 7

, 2 0 1 1

. ” T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s e d 6

t h e a p p e a l b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t ’ s n o t i c e w a s u n t i m e l y b y o n e d a y

. 7

A p p e l l a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

, c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s ’ s h o l d i n g e x a l t s f o r m o v e r s u b s t a n c e b y d i s m i s s i n g h i s a p p e a l “ b a s e d o n a t e c h n i c a l

n o n

- c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e [

. ] ” 8

I I

.

T i m e l y f i l i n g o f a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o h e a r i n g

a n a p p e a l

. I f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s n o t t i m e l y f i l e d

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h a s n o o p t i o n b u t t o 9

Ex parte Castillo , 2011 WL 2436771, at *1. 5

Id. 6

Id. 7

Appellant’s B rief at 3. 8

Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“A timely notice of a

ppeal 9

is nece ssary

to invoke a cour

t of appe als’ jurisdiction.”).Castillo P ag e 4

d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l f

o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n

. N o r m a l l y

, a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s “ f i l e d ” w h e n 1 0

i t i s p h y s i c a l l y d e l i v e r e d t o

, a n d r e c e i v e d b y

, t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. T h u s

, a n o t i c e o f 1 1

a p p e a l m a y b e t i m e l y d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c l e r k b y a n y m e a n s : p e r s o n a l d e l i v e r y

, p r i v a t e c o u r i e r

,

U

. S

. m a i l

, o r

, a s p e r m i t t e d o r r e q u i r e d b y l o c a l r u l e s

, b y e l e c t r o n i c m e a n s

, s u c h a s f a x o r e

m a i l

. 1 2

A l o n g

- s t a n d i n g e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s “ p h y s i c a l d e l i v e r y ” f i l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t w a s t h e

c o m m o n

- l a w m a i l b o x r u l e

. A s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d i n 1 8 8 4

,

T h e r u l e i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i f a l e t t e r p r o p e r l y d i r e c t e d i s p r o v e d t o h a v e b e e n

e i t h e r p u t i n t o t h e p o s t

- o f f i c e o r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p o s t m a n

, i t i s p r e s u m e d

, f r o m

t h e k n o w n c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s i n t h e p o s t

- o f f i c e d e p a r t m e n t

, t h a t i t r e a c h e d i t s

d e s t i n a t i o n a t t h e r e g u l a r t i m e

, a n d w a s r e c e i v e d b y t h e p e r s o n t o w h o m i t w a s

Id. at 523 (“ When a notice of appea l, but no moti on for e x tension of time, is filed 1 0

within the fifteen- day

period, the c ourt of appe als lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purpor ted

appea l in any

manner other than by

dismiss ing it for

lack of jurisdiction.”); see also Slaton v.

State , 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (af firming continuing va lidity of Olivo rule

under r evised TRAPs).

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 25.2(b) (“ I n a cr iminal case, a ppeal is per fec ted by

timely filing a 1 1

sufficie nt notice of a

ppeal.” ); 25.2(c) (1) ( “Notice must be g iven in writing and filed w ith the trial

court c lerk.” ); 9.2(a) (1) ( “A doc ument is filed in an appe llate cour t by delivering it to. . . the clerk

of the c ourt in which the doc ument is to be filed[.] ”). U nder Rule 25.2( c)( 1), the notice of appe al

is filed if it is ti mely

rec eived by

the cour t of appe als, bec ause the cler k of that cour

t will

“immediately

rec ord on the notice the date tha t it was rec eived a nd send the notice to the trial

court c lerk.” See J

amar v. Patterson , 868 S.W .2d 318, 319 (Tex. 1993) (“I n a long line of ca ses,

this court has held that a

document is ‘filed’ when it is tendere d to the cler k, or otherw ise put

under the custody

or control of

the cler k.”).

See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9.2(c) ( “Doc uments may be per mitted or require d to be filed, 1 2

signe d, or ver ified by

elec tronic mea

ns by order of the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal

Appea ls, or by

local rule of a c ourt of appe als. A tec hnical fa ilure that pre cludes a party ’s

compliance with electr onic-filing proce dures c annot be a basis for disposing of any case .”).Castillo P ag e 5

a d d r e s s e d

. 1 3

T h e r a t i o n a l e f

o r t h e “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e i s t w o

- f o l d

. F i r s t

,

m a n y c i t i z e n s w h o m u s t f i l e a d o c u m e n t w i t h a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y l i v e t o o f a r a w a y t o

p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r t h a t d o c u m e n t t o t h e e n t i t y ; t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e p e n a l i z e d b y b e i n g r e q u i r e d

t o s e n d t h e i r d o c u m e n t s e a r l i e r t h a n t h o s e c i t i z e n s w h o h a p p e n t o l i v e i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o

t h a t e n t i t y

. S e c o n d

, t h e l a w a s s u m e s t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s

, s u c h a s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

P o s t a l S e r v i c e

, p e r f

o r m t h e i r j o b s d i l i g e n t l y

, i f n o t a l w a y s i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r

. 1 4

I n 1 9 5 4

, C o n g r e s s c o d i f i e d a v e r s i o n o f t h e c o m m o n l a w “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ”

m a i l b o x r u l e f

o r d o c u m e n t s f

i l e d w i t h t h e I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e

. “ T h e c o d i f i e d r u l e w a s

d e s i g n e d t o a l l e v i a t e t a x p a y e r h a r d s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e v a g a r i e s o f t h e I

. R

. S

. a n d t h e p o s t a l

Rosenthal v. W

alker , 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884). The Supreme Court quoted a n ear lier 1 3

case explaining that

“the pr esumption so arising is not a c onclusive pre sumption of law, but a mere

infere nce of

fac t, founded on the pr obability that the offic ers of

the g overnme nt

will do their duty

and the usua l course of

business; and, when it is opposed by

evidenc e that the letter s never wer e re ceive d, must be weig hed with all the other

circ umstances of

the ca se, by

the jury in determining the question whethe r the

letters we re a ctually

rec eived or

not.”

Id. at 193-94.

See note 15 infra. These sa me two ra tionales also supports the “pr isoner mailbox” rule, 1 4

which dee ms the pleading s of a pro se inmate filed a t the time they are delivere d to prison

authorities for f

orwa rding to the court c lerk. Campbell v. State , 320 S.W .3d 338, 344 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010); see also Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 271, 275 (1988) (“ Unlike other

litigants, pro se prisoners c annot per sonally trave l to the courthouse to see that the notice is

stamped ‘f

iled’ or to esta

blish the date on which the court re ceive d the notice. . . . The pro se

prisoner doe s not anony

mously drop his notice of a

ppeal in a public ma ilbox –he hands it over to

prison authorities who have well-de veloped pr ocedur es for rec ording the date a

nd time at which

they rec eive pa

pers f or mailing ”).Castillo P ag e 6

s y s t e m [

. ] ” U n d e r t h a t s t a t u t o r y m a i l b o x r u l e

, a d o c u m e n t t h a t m u s t b e f i l e d o n a c e r t a i n d a t e 1 5

i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e t i m e l y f i l e d i f i t i s p o s t m a r k e d o n t h a t d a t e a n d t i m e l y d e p o s i t e d i n t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l s y s t e m o n t h a t d a t e

. T h e p l a i n

, u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e o f t h a t s t a t u t e 1 6

h a s b e e n s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d t o c o v e r o n l y t h o s e d o c u m e n t s t h a t h a v e b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o a n d

p o s t m a r k e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

, s o d e l i v e r y b y p r i v a t e c o u r i e r s

, s u c h a s

F e d E x a n d U P S

, i s n o t c o v e r e d b y t h e m a i l b o x r u l e

. 1 7

T e x a s h a s l o n g f

o l l o w e d t h a t s a m e m a i l b o x r u l e i n i t s R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a n d

Kimberly

C. Metzger

, Interpretation of the Sec tion 7502 Ti mely- Mailing, Ti mely-Filing 1 5

Requireme nts: Carroll v. Commissi oner and the Liberal/Cons ervative Interpretation Dilemma

, 28 U. T O L

. L

. R E V . 767, 768 (1997). The rationale for that c odification is that

[i ]n fili ng a tax return by

mail, two burea

ucra cies c ome into play , the I RS and the

Postal S ervic e. Ea ch is g ear ed to handle hig h volumes of work, a nd eac h

functions cor

rec tly most of the time. Never

theless, all bure aucr acie s can

mishandle individual items, and the I RS and the Postal S ervic e ar e no exceptions.

The Postal Service has bee n known to apply illegible postmar

ks or no postmark at

all and has de tained mail addr essed to the I RS. For its part, the I RS has lost

, mishandled, and, in some ca ses, ac tually destroy ed tax returns.

Kenne th H. Ry esky

, Mailing is Fil ing Only if Proof of Maili ng is Incontrove rtible , 54 T A X ’ N F O R

A C C T . 153, 154 (1995); see also Drak e v. Comm issioner, 554 F.2d 736, 738 ( 5th Cir. 1977)

(“Prior to e nactment of

the 1954 [I .R.S.] Code, there was no similar provision with reg ard to

timely mailing e qualing timely

filing. Timely

filing de pended upon the time of delivery of a

petition to the tax court in Washington, D.C. a nd varie d with the g eog raphic al ar ea of mailing

and the vicissitudes of the ma ils.”); Sylvan v . Commissioner , 65 T.C. 548, 551 (1975) (“ Prior to

the ena ctment of sec tion 7502, tim ely filing de pended on the vicissitudes of the mail, with the

time of delivery

vary ing a s to the g eog raphic al ar ea of mailing, the se asonal de mands imposed on

the post office , and the postal pe rfor mance in the individual case pr esente d. I n order to alleviate

hardships re sulting fr om delay s in particular case s, a pre sumption of tim ely delivery was ofte n

employ ed. . . . Cong ress e nacte d section 7502 to eliminate the inequities re sulting fr om variations

in postal perfor

mance when a

document is timely

mailed.”)

.

26 U.S.C. § 7502(a)-( b). 1 6

See P etrulis v. Commissioner , 938 F.2d 78, 80- 81 (7th Cir. 1991); Pugsley v

. 1 7

Commissioner , 749 F.2d 691, 693 ( 11th Cir. 1985); Correia v. Commissioner , 58 F.3d 468, 469

(9th Cir. 1995).Castillo P ag e 7

R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

. R u l e 5 o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e i s t i t l e d

“ E n l a r g e m e n t o f T i m e

. ” I t w a s a m e n d e d

, e f f e c t i v e M a r c h 1

, 1 9 5 0

, t o c o d i f y t h e “ t i m e l y

m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f

i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e

. R u l e 5 c o n t i n u e s t o p r o v i d e a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e t h a t 1 8

d o c u m e n t s a r e f

i l e d u p o n p h y s i c a l d e l i v e r y

. I t c u r r e n t l y r e a d s :

I f a n y d o c u m e n t i s s e n t t o t h e p r o p e r c l e r k b y f i r s t

- c l a s s U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l i n

a n e n v e l o p e o r w r a p p e r p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d a n d s t a m p e d a n d i s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e

m a i l o n o r b e f

o r e t h e l a s t d a y f

o r f i l i n g s a m e

, t h e s a m e

, i f r e c e i v e d b y t h e c l e r k

n o t m o r e t h a n t e n d a y s t a r d i l y

, s h a l l b e f i l e d b y t h e c l e r k a n d b e d e e m e d f i l e d

i n t i m e

. A l e g i b l e p o s t m a r k a f f i x e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e s h a l l

b e p r i m a f

a c i e e v i d e n c e o f t h e d a t e o f m a i l i n g

. 1 9

T h e m a i l b o x r u l e i n C i v i l R u l e 5

, l i k e t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e

, a p p l i e s o n l y t o d o c u m e n t s t h a t a r e

T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 5. The 1950 amendme nt rea d: 1 8

Provided, howeve r, if a motion for ne w trial, motion for re hear ing, a ny matter

rela ting to taking an appe al or wr it of err or fr om the trial court to any highe r cour

t,

or applica tion for writ of e rror is sent to the proper c lerk by first-cla ss United

States mail in an envelope or wra pper pr operly

addre ssed and stampe d and is

deposited in the mail one da y or more be fore the last day for f iling same , and the

envelop or

wra pper c ontaining sa

me bea rs a postmark show ing suc h deposit, the

same, if r ece ived by

the cler k not more than ten da

y s tardily shall be filed by

the

cler k and be de emed f

iled in time.

See P hillips v. Re ese , 256 S.W .2d 162, 164-66 (Te x . Civ. App.–El Paso 1952, writ ref’ d n.r.e.)

(discussing the 1950 amendme nt to Rul e 5 and holding that appellate court ha d obtained

jurisdiction over appe al when r ecor d and motion for extension were filed on the da y befor e the

amendment took ef

fec t, which was a lso the day befor e the motion for e x tension was due)

.

T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 5. Rul e 21a, de aling with methods of service , also incorpor ates the 1 9

mailbox rule for

timely delivery of plea dings, a

nd paper s in civil lawsuits (“Service by mail shall

be complete upon deposit of the pape r, enc losed in a postpaid, prope rly addre ssed wra

pper, in a

post office or off

icial depository

under the car e and c ustody of the United States Postal

Service .”).Castillo P ag e 8

d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e U

. S

. P o s t a l S e r v i c e

, n o t t o d o c u m e n t s d e l i v e r e d b y a p r i v a t e c o u r i e r

. 2 0

T h a t s a m e “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e i s i n t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

. R u l e 9

. 2 ( b )

– a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h c i v i l a n d c r i m i n a l c a s e s

– r e a d s

,

( b ) F i l i n g b

y Ma i l

.

( 1 ) T i m e l y F i l i n g

. A d o c u m e n t r e c e i v e d w i t h i n t e n d a y s a f t e r t h e f i l i n g d e a d l i n e

i s c o n s i d e r e d t i m e l y f

i l e d i f :

( A ) i t w a s s e n t t o t h e p r o p e r c l e r k b y U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e f i r s t

c l a s s

, e x p r e s s

, r e g i s t e r e d

, o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l ;

( B ) i t w a s p l a c e d i n a n e n v e l o p e o r w r a p p e r p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d a n d

s t a m p e d ; a n d

( C ) i t w a s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e m a i l o n o r b e f o r e t h e l a s t d a y f

o r f i l i n g

.

( 2 ) P r o o f o f M a i l i n g

. T h o u g h i t m a y c o n s i d e r o t h e r p r o o f

, t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l

a c c e p t t h e f

o l l o w i n g a s c o n c l u s i v e p r o o f o f t h e d a t e o f m a i l i n g :

( A ) a l e g i b l e p o s t m a r k a f f i x e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e ;

( B ) a r e c e i p t f

o r r e g i s t e r e d o r c e r t i f

i e d m a i l i f t h e r e c e i p t i s e n d o r s e d b y t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e ; o r

( C ) a c e r t i f

i c a t e o f m a i l i n g b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. 2 1

T h e p l a i n

, u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e o f t h i s r u l e s p e a k s t o t h e t i m e l y m a i l i n g o f a

d o c u m e n t v i a t h e “ U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. ” I t d o e s n o t p e r m i t a n y o t h e r t y p e o f

d e l i v e r y o r p r i v a t e c o u r i e r s y s t e m

.

Carpenter v. Town and Country Bank , 806 S.W .2d 959, 960 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2 0

1991, writ denied) (appe llate cour t lacked jur isdiction to consider appe al when a ppellant sent its

motion for new tria l “by

UPS, a private c ourier, a nd not by the United States mail. Ther efor e, the

time for filing cannot be enlar g ed, and the motion was not tim ely filed.”) ; see also Texas

W orkers’ Comp. Comm’ n v. Hartford Acc ident & Indem . Co. , 952 S.W .2d 949, 952-53 (Te x

. App.–Corpus Christi 1997, writ denied).

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9.2(b) 2 1Castillo P ag e 9

I I I

.

I n t h i s c a s e

, a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t t i m e l y d e l i v e r h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e c l e r k o f t h e

t r i a l c o u r t

. I t w a s d u e o n A p r i l 2 9

, 2 0 1 1

. H o w e v e r

, R u l e 2 6

. 3 p r o v i d e s a m e a s u r e o f r e l i e f

f o r t h e i n a d v e r t e n t s l o w p o k e

. I t p e r m i t s a n e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e a f t e r t h e d e a d l i n e t o f

i l e 2 2

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, i f

, w i t h i n f

i f t e e n d a y s a f

t e r t h e d e a d l i n e

, t h e p a r t y f i l e s ( a ) t h e n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; a n d ( b ) a m o t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e u n d e r R u l e 1 0

. 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) i n t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 2 6

. 3 e i t h e r ; h e d i d n o t p h y s i c a l l y

d e l i v e r t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h i n t h a t f i f t e e n

- d a y g r a c e p e r i o d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t b y a n y

a p p r o p r i a t e m e a n s

– p e r s o n a l d e l i v e r y

, p r i v a t e c o u r i e r

, U

. S

. m a i l

, f a x o r e

- m a i l

. A n d h e d i d

n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e “ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x

- r u l e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e p h y s i c a l

d e l i v e r y r u l e b y d e l i v e r i n g h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e w i t h i n t h a t

f i f t e e n

- d a y e x t e n s i o n p e r i o d

. H e w a i t e d u n t i l 6 : 4 9 p

. m

. – a f t e r t h e c l o s e o f b u s i n e s s h o u r s a t

A par ty must state “the fa cts relied on to r easona bly explain the need for

an extension.” 2 2

TRAP 10.5(b)(1). T he ter m “re asonably

explain” means a “ plausible statement of c ircumstance s

indicating that the fa ilure to file within the appr opriate de adline wa s not deliberate or intentional,

but was the re sult of inadverte nce, mistake , or mischanc e.” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc

., 774

S.W .2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989); Meshwert v. M eshwert, 549 S.W .2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1977).

Neg lige nt forg etfulness may suffice ; an intentional decision to delay will not. See R odman v.

State , 47 S.W .3d 545, 548 (Tex. App.– Amarillo 2000, no pet.) ( “The fac ts relied upon by

appellant to justify

the delay ed filing of his notice of a ppeal de monstrate that appe llant intended

not to file a notice of

appea l until i t was filed” ; when appe llant delibera tely failed to file a

notice

of appe al within the normal time limit s, but later cha ng ed his mind, he did not “‘re asonably

explain the need for

an extension’ within the meaning of TRAP 10.5(b)(1) (C) so that we ma y

g rant the motion for e x tension pursuant to TRAP 26.3.”).

I n this case, the c ourt of appe als also noted that appe llant not only filed an untimely

notice of a

ppeal, but that his motion for an e x tension of time did not offer “a r easona

ble

explanation for his need to e x tend the time to file the notice of appe al.” Castil lo , 2011 WL

2436771, at *1 n.3.Castillo P ag e 10

t h e c o u r t h o u s e

– t o h a v e F e d e r a l E x p r e s s p i c k u p h i s d o c u m e n t s a n d d e l i v e r t h e m t o t h e t r i a l

c o u r t c l e r k t h e n e x t d a y

. T h a t n e x t d a y w a s t h e s i x t e e n t h d a y a f t e r t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l ( a n d

t h e m o t i o n f

o r a n e x t e n s i o n ) w a s d u e

. T h i s w a s j u s t o n e d a y l a t e

, b u t o n e d a y i s e n o u g h t o

d e p r i v e t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p e a l u n d e r t h e T e x a s

R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

. 2 3

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e “ t o o k a l l s t e p s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o p e r f e c t a l a t e f

i l i n g o f

h i s N o t i c e o f A p p e a l e x c e p t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f T e x

. R

. A p p

. P r o c

. 9

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) t o s e n d b y

U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. ” B u t t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t i s n o t o p t i o n a l

. L i k e t h e f e d e r a l

t a x p a y e r s i n P e t r u l i s a n d P u g s l e y

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e m a i l b o x r u l e s h o u l d n o t b e

c o n f i n e d t o U

. S

. P o s t a l S e r v i c e m a i l b o x e s

, b u t s h o u l d i n c l u d e a n y p r i v a t e c o u r i e r o r d e l i v e r y

s y s t e m t h a t d e l i v e r s t h e d o c u m e n t s w i t h i n t e n d a y s

. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t a m a i l b o x r u l e 2 4

t h a t a p p l i e s o n l y t o d o c u m e n t s d e p o s i t e d i n t h e U

. S

. m a i l i s “ a r c h a i c a n d t o h o l d o t h e r w i s e

[ w o u l d ] f r u s t r a t e t h e p u r p o s e c l e a r l y e m b o d i e d i n t h e r u l e

. ” B u t

, a s n o t e d a b o v e

, t h e “ t i m e l y

m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f

i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e p r o v i d e s a v e r y s p e c i f i c m e a n s b y w h i c h t h o s e w h o c a n n o t

Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curia m) (“I f an 2 3

appea l is not t imely

perf ecte d, a cour

t of appe als does not obtain jurisdiction to address the me rits

of the a ppeal.” ); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“A timely notice

of appe al is nece ssary

to invoke a cour

t of appe als’ jurisdiction.”).

See P etrulis , 938 F.2d a

t 81 (reje cting taxpay ers’ complaint that “mailbox rule” is “bad 2 4

law” g iven the “a cce ptable alter natives to the U.S. Postal Service a vailable today ”; noting tha t

only “Cong ress c an re write the la w to include docume nts delivered by private c arr ier ser

vices” );

Pugsley , 749 F.2d a t 693 (“I t is appare nt from the numer ous ref ere nces to ‘U nited States mail’ in

the statutes and r eg ulations that section 7502 is intended to apply only to mail delivered by

the

United States Postal Service a nd not also to items delivered by a priva te deliver

y sy stem.”).Castillo P ag e 11

t i m e l y d e l i v e r d o c u m e n t s t o a g i v e n g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t y

– s u c h a s c o u r t s o r t h e I n t e r n a l

R e v e n u e S e r v i c e

– i n p e r s o n m a y t i m e l y d e l i v e r t h e m t o a n o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y ( t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e f o r m o s t l i t i g a n t s o r t h e p r i s o n s y s t e m m a i l r o o m f o r p r o s e

p r i s o n e r s )

. I f f

i l i n g s a r e t i m e l y d e l i v e r e d t o t h a t m a i l b o x o r m a i l r o o m

, t h e f i l i n g c i t i z e n b e a r s

n o b l a m e f

o r d e l a y s i n t h e U

. S

. m a i l s y s t e m s o l o n g a s t h e d o c u m e n t a r r i v e s w i t h i n t e n d a y s

o f t h e f i l i n g d a t e

.

A s t i m e s c h a n g e

, t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g a c c e p t a b l e d e l i v e r y s y s t e m s m a y c h a n g e a s w e l l

.

O u r a p p e l l a t e r u l e s a l r e a d y p r o v i d e f o r t h e d e l i v e r y o f d o c u m e n t s b y e l e c t r o n i c m e a n s ;

p e r h a p s t h e y w i l l b e a m e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r a “ t i m e l y p i c k e d

- u p

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” r u l e f

o r

p r i v a t e c o u r i e r s

. B u t c o u r t s m u s t a p p l y t h e r u l e s t h a t e x i s t t o d a y

. T h o s e r u l e s c o n t a i n a 2 5

“ t i m e l y m a i l e d

, t i m e l y f i l e d ” m a i l b o x r u l e t h a t a p p l i e s o n l y t o d o c u m e n t s d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e

. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e p l a i n

, u n a m b i g u o u s r u l e

,

a n d s o h e d i d n o t i n v o k e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

.

W e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

.

D e l i v e r e d : J u n e 2 0

, 2 0 1 2

P u b l i s h

Perhaps Cong ress ha s declined to c hang e the “ timely mailed, timely

filed” U nited 2 5

States Postal S ervic e mailbox rule for the I nterna l Revenue Ser vice to one inc luding pr ivate

courie r or de livery

sy stems beca

use there are thousands of such se rvice s scatter ed ac ross the

nation, rang ing f

rom g iants like Fe dera l Ex press a nd UPS to t he little “J oe’s De livery Service ” in

Santa Fe Springs. Who would decide which priva te deliver y sy stems are sufficie ntly

reliable and

trac eable to come under

a propose d “timely

picked- up, timely

filed” r ule? Wit h the adve nt of

elec tronic filing , this iss ue may be moot.