Dismissed and Opinion Filed on March 17, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01492 - CR ANDREW ANDERSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19 - 52721 - R MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Nowell, and Evans Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness Andrew Anderson appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On July 25, 2019, appellant pleaded guilty under a plea bargain agreement with the State and was placed on eight years of deferred adjudication. Shortly there a fter , the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication alleging appellant violated a condition of his supervisi on. A ppellant entered an open plea of true to the allegation in the motion

. On October 7, 2019, the trial court found the allegation true, found appellant guilty , and assessed punishment at eight years . The trial court certified , and the record supports, that appellant ha s the right to appeal

.– 2

– On December 2 , 2019, appellant filed his notice of appeal in the trial court

. After the record was filed, w e requested jurisdictional letter briefs from appellant and the State regarding the timeliness of the appea l

. After reviewing those and the applicable law, we dismiss th is appeal. A defendant perfects an appeal by filing with the trial court clerk, within thirty days after the date sentence was imposed, or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant t imely filed a motion for a new trial, a written notice of appeal showing his desire to appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(b), (c), 26.2(a), (b). A document received “within ten days after the filing deadline is considered timely filed if,” as relevant here, “it was sent to the proper clerk by United States Postal Service or a commercial delivery service.” See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 9.2(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Courts have interpreted the phrase “proper clerk” liberally to include “agents of the district clerk” and the clerk of the correct court of appeals. See Taylor v. State , 424 S.W.3d 39, 45‒46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Moore v. State , 840 S.W.2d 439, 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Mailing a not ice of appeal to one’s attorney , to the trial court, or to the trial court judge does not meet the requirements of the rule. Turner v. State , 529 S.W.3d 157, 159 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (holding prisoner mailbox rule did not apply when appella nt delivered envelope to prison authorities for forwarding to trial judge); Bowen v. State , 05

- 19

- 01530

- CR, 2020 WL 1042646, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 3, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding mailbox rule did not apply when notice was– 3

– mailed to trial court judge); Rhodes v. State , 05

- 16

- 00921

- CR, 2017 WL 3587101, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (mailing notice of appeal to third

- party agent for redelivery to tri al court clerk does not comply with rule). In the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See Castillo v. Sate , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Here, the trial court adjudicated appellan t ’s guil t and pronounced sentence in
on October 7 , 2019. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due on November 6 , 2019. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s undated notice of appeal, post

- marked November 4 , 2019, w as mailed to “Dallas County Court #265.” It was then forwarded to the district clerk who file stamped it on December 2 , 2019. Because the notice was not sent to the proper clerk, appellant cannot avail himself of the ten

- day grace period provided by the mailbox rule. See id . 9.2(b); see also Turner , 529 S.W.3d at 159. As a result, appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction over th is appeal. See Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 202.– 4

– We dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1

Do Not Publish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b)

1 Appellant is not without a remedy. He m ay seek an out
- of

- time appeal under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07. /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANDREW ANDERSON, Appellant No. 05

- 19

- 01492

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 52721

- R. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida

Kipness, Justices Nowell and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. Judgment entered this 17t h day of March, 2020

.