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 

thereafter, the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication alleging appellant 

violated a condition of his supervision. Appellant 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 has the right to appeal. 
–2–

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

After the record was filed, we requested jurisdictional letter briefs from appellant 

and the State regarding the timeliness of the appeal. After reviewing those and the 

applicable law, we dismiss this 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 timely filed a motion for a new trial, a written notice of appeal showing 

his desire to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 notice 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 appellant 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 trial 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 appellant’s guilt 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 TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s 

undated notice of appeal, post-marked November 4, 2019, was 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 this appeal. See Castillo, 369 

S.W.3d at 202.
–4–

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

1

Appellant is not without a remedy. He may seek an out-of-time appeal under article 11.07 of the code 

of criminal procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07.

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

S

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 PartidaKipness, Justices Nowell and Evans 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 17th day of March, 2020.