mailbox rule in Texas

2025Under the mailbox rule, “a document that must be filed on a certain date is considered to be timely filed if it is postmarked on that date and timely deposited in the United States mail system on that date.” Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196 , 199–200 (Tex. Crim.

2014Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex.Crim.App.2012). • However, a longstanding exception to the physical-delivery requirement is the mailbox rule, codified as Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.2(b), which applies in both civil and criminal cases and provides that a document received within ten days after the filing deadline is considered timely filed if it was “sent to the proper clerk” through the United States Postal Service; placed in a “properly addressed,” stamped envelope; and deposited in the mail on or before the last day of filing.

2017Taylor, 424 S.W.3d at 44 . 2 The court found the notice of appeal timely because (1) Rule 25.2(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates that the clerk of the court of appeals immediately date stamp and forward the notice of appeal to the trial court clerk and (2) the notice of appeal- actually reached the correct destination within the period of time permitted under the mailbox rule.

2017Thus, unless either the mailbox rule or the prisoner mailbox rule applied, the notice of appeal was untimely. 1 “[U]nder the mailbox rule as it applies to prisoners ... a pro se inmate’s pleading is deemed filed at the time the prison authorities duly receive the document to be mailed.” Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. Crim.

2025In interpreting the mailbox rule that is found in Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides substantially similar requirements as Rule 9.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Texas Supreme Court has held, for civil cases, that “mailing the document to the proper court address is conditionally effective as mailing it to the proper court clerk’s address.” Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. 2 Co., 917 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis omitted); see TEX.

2025The court clarified, for purposes of the mailbox rule, “[t]he clerk still must receive the document within ten days to perfect the filing.” Stokes, 917 S.W.2d at 268 ; McCray v. Mulder, No. 05-08-00420-CV, 2008 WL 2600700 , at *1 (Tex. App.— Dallas July 2, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2015Respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's federal habeas application as time barred and, on September 5, 2013, the United States District Judge adopted a Report and Recommendation filed August 19, 2013 3 This Court considers the date of the Declaration to be the date petitioner deposited his petition with prison authorities for application of the state's mailbox rule as set forth in Richards v. Thaler, 2013 WL 809246 (5'h Cir. March 5, 2013) (citing Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338,344 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010)).

2011App. P . 9.2 (“the mailbox rule”); see Campbell v. State , 320 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim.

2015Mailbox rule, deemed filed-(Warner v. Glass 135 S.W.3d 681, 682 (Tex. 04') 5.

2009Nevertheless, Vaughn argues that under the mailbox rule, his claim is considered filed as of the moment prison officials received his mailing, citing Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. 2004) (holding “a pro se inmate’s claim under section 14.004 of the Inmate Litigation Act is deemed filed at the time the prison authorities duly receive the document to be -3- 04-08-00491-CV mailed”).

2009Co., 917 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex.1996) and Williams v. Schneiber, 148 S.W.3d 581, 585-86 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.), noting that in finding documents timely filed under the mailbox rule, neither court relied on receipt within ten days of mailing.

2009Co., 917 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex.1996) and Williams v. Schneiber, 148 S.W.3d 581, 585-86 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.), noting that in finding documents timely filed under the mailbox rule, neither court relied on receipt within ten days of mailing.

2004Cantu v. Central Ed. Agency , 884 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no writ) (stating the mailbox rule provides that the properly addressed acceptance of an offer is effective when deposited in the mail, unless otherwise agreed or provided by law).

2004Cantu v. Central Ed. Agency, 884 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, no writ) (stating the mailbox rule provides that the properly addressed acceptance of an offer is effective when deposited in the mail, unless otherwise agreed or provided by law).

2004In re Hearn, No. 04-03-00949-CV, slip. op., 2004 Tex. App. Lexis 3514 at 9 n.5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, April 21, 2004, no pet. h.) (holding that Rule 5 does not deem a motion filed on the date it was placed in the mail when no filing deadline is involved); Smith v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 33 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) (holding that the mailbox rule does not enlarge the time in which an inmate has to file a written order issued in a grievance proceeding when the statute did not contain a filing deadline).

2004In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 , 685 n. 5 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet. h.) (holding that Rule 5 does not deem a motion filed on the date it was placed in the mail when no filing deadline is involved); Smith v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 33 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex.App.-Tex-arkana 2000, pet. denied) (holding that the mailbox rule does not enlarge the time in which an inmate has to file a written order issued in a grievance proceeding when the statute did not contain a filing deadline).

2012In so arguing, Worldwide misreads the mailbox rule in same manner identified in Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 441-42 (Tex.2005) (per curiam).

2012In so arguing, Worldwide misreads the mailbox rule in same manner identified in Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 441-42 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam).

2018“But there are multiple forms of prima facie evidence by which a court may determine the filing date under the ‘mailbox rule.’” Alvarez v. Thomas, 172 S.W.3d 298 , 302–03 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.).5 We hold that Chau adduced more than a scintilla of evidence to create a question of material fact on whether her attorney’s affidavit and the attached documents adduced evidence of her compliance with the mailbox rule under Rule 5.

2015Id. at 268 (“We construe the words 172 S.W.3d 298 , 302–03 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) ‘the same’ in the rules to mean an original or any copy of the (noting certificate of service and attorney's affidavit are both motion sufficient for filing.”). prima facie evidence of date of mailing).

2020Co., 895 S.W.2d 693 , 693–94 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). 4 Although such practice would be unheard of in the context of hard copies and the mailbox rule, the eFileTexas system allows for this.

2015See Lofton, 895 S.W.2d at 693–94; Alvarez v. Thomas, from the mailbox rule.

2018Just as Milam used “Rule 5” as a shorthand to refer to the mailbox rule in the second paragraph of Rule 5, Milam, 891 S.W.2d at 2 , Morris appears to have used “Rule 5” as a shorthand for the first paragraph, which concerns a court’s power to extend a deadline for good cause.

2018The mailbox rule, however, provides an exception: “[O]nce the provisions of Rule 5 are met, the post office becomes a branch of the district clerk’s office for purposes of filing pleadings.” Milam, 891 S.W.2d at 2 .

2008Though we have not interpreted Rule 5 as applied to answers, this Court has previously found that "Rule 5's 'mailbox rule' does not apply where there is no preset deadline for filing a document." Alvarez v. Thomas , 172 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.); see also In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681 , 685 n.5 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, no pet.) ("Rule 5 does not deem a motion filed . . . when no filing deadline is involved"); Smith v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Inst.

2004In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 , 685 n. 5 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet. h.) (holding that Rule 5 does not deem a motion filed on the date it was placed in the mail when no filing deadline is involved); Smith v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 33 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex.App.-Tex-arkana 2000, pet. denied) (holding that the mailbox rule does not enlarge the time in which an inmate has to file a written order issued in a grievance proceeding when the statute did not contain a filing deadline).

2025The mailbox rule “states a document is deemed timely filed if it is sent to the proper clerk by first-class mail in a properly addressed, stamped envelope.” Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2007).

2016P. 9.2(b), 10.5(b), 26.3(b); Houser, 243 S.W.3d at 646 ; Ramos, 228 S.W.3d at 673 ; see also Glover, 2012 WL 114200 , at *3 (concluding that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed under the mailbox rule and that court of appeals had jurisdiction to consider merits of appeal).

2021App. 2014)(holding that because the address to which appellant sent his notice of appeal was “sufficiently specific” for the document to be received in the proper place at the proper time, the notice of appeal was properly filed for purposes of the mailbox rule); Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim.

2021Appellant contends that the court of appeals read Rule 9.2(b)(1)(A) too strictly, that the “proper clerk” language should be construed liberally, and that minor imperfections in the address should not deprive a pro se prisoner of the benefit of the mailbox rule, much like this Court’s holding in Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim.

2025Although a document will be deemed to be timely filed under the mailbox rule if it is received within ten days of a filing deadline, that rule applies only if the document “was sent to the proper clerk,” “was placed in an envelope or wrapper properly 2 addressed and stamped,” and “was deposited in the mail or delivered to a commercial delivery service on or before the last day for filing.” Id.

2025R. 26.2, and the notice cannot be deemed timely under the mailbox rule, id.

2012Express Corp. v. UPS, 765 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1015 (W.D.Tenn.2010) (discussing 2009 Morgan Stanley Research Parcel Returns Survey ranking Federal Express first under “Service Reliability”). 2 According to its website, Federal Express “uses a global air-and-ground network to speed delivery of time-sensitive shipments, usually in one to two business days with the delivery time guaranteed,” a claim substantiated by the company’s track record. 3 If the mailbox rule originated because “it is presumed, from the known course of business in the post-office department, that [a document] reached its destina

2012Express Corp. v. UPS, 765 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1015 (W.D.Tenn.2010) (discussing 2009 Morgan Stanley Research Parcel Returns Survey ranking Federal Express first under “Service Reliability”). 2 According to its website, Federal Express “uses a global air-and-ground network to speed delivery of time-sensitive shipments, usually in one to two business days with the delivery time guaranteed,” a claim substantiated by the company’s track record. 3 If the mailbox rule originated because “it is presumed, from the known course of business in the post-office department, that [a document] reached its destina

2020See id. 9.2(b); see also Turner, 529 S.W.3d at 159 .

2020See id. 9.2(b); see also Turner, 529 S.W.3d at 159 .

2018See Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 , 960–62 (Tex. 1999).

2000See Albertson’s, 984 S.W.2d at 962 .

2018Morris, 369 S.W.3d at 171 .

2013See id. (stating that a document will be deemed filed on the date the item is deposited in the mail if it “is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped”) (emphasis added); Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (“[I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice.”); Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply the mailbox rule absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck, 24 S.W.3d 470, 472-73 (Tex. App.—Texarkan

2013See id. (stating that a document will be deemed filed on the date the item is deposited in the mail if it “is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped”) (emphasis added); Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (“[I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice.”); Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply the mailbox rule absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck, 24 S.W.3d 470, 472-73 (Tex. App.—Texarkan

2008See Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc. , 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App. C Austin 2004, no pet.) ( A [I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice. @ ); see also, e.g., Ex parte Bates , 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply A mailbox rule @ absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck , 24 S.W.3d 470 , 472 B 73 (Tex. App. C Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) ( A mailbox rule @ not satisfied when party failed to demonstrate that proper postage was affixed); Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Dincans , 882 S.W.2d 75, 79 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th D

2013See id. (stating that a document will be deemed filed on the date the item is deposited in the mail if it “is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped”) (emphasis added); Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (“[I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice.”); Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply the mailbox rule absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck, 24 S.W.3d 470, 472-73 (Tex. App.—Texarkan

2008See Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc. , 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App. C Austin 2004, no pet.) ( A [I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice. @ ); see also, e.g., Ex parte Bates , 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply A mailbox rule @ absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck , 24 S.W.3d 470 , 472 B 73 (Tex. App. C Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) ( A mailbox rule @ not satisfied when party failed to demonstrate that proper postage was affixed); Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Dincans , 882 S.W.2d 75, 79 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th D

2012Carpenter v. Town and Country Bank, 806 S.W.2d 959, 960 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1991, writ denied) (appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal when appellant sent its motion for new trial "by UPS, a private courier, and not by the United States mail.

2012Carpenter v. Town and Country Bank , 806 S.W.2d 959, 960 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1991, writ denied) (appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal when appellant sent its motion for new trial "by UPS, a private courier, and not by the United States mail.

2005Co. v. Allen , 15 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. 2000) (holding that labor code section 410.253's simultaneous-filing requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional and that the mailbox rule applies to section 410.253 filings).

2005Co. v. Allen , 15 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. 2000) (holding that labor code section 410.253's simultaneous-filing requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional and that the mailbox rule applies to section 410.253 filings).

2002See id.

2002See id.

2013See id. (stating that a document will be deemed filed on the date the item is deposited in the mail if it “is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped”) (emphasis added); Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (“[I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice.”); Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply the mailbox rule absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck, 24 S.W.3d 470, 472-73 (Tex. App.—Texarkan

2008See Wesco Distrib., Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc. , 150 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App. C Austin 2004, no pet.) ( A [I]nsufficient postage meant ineffective notice. @ ); see also, e.g., Ex parte Bates , 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (refusing to apply A mailbox rule @ absent proof of sufficient postage); Arnold v. Shuck , 24 S.W.3d 470 , 472 B 73 (Tex. App. C Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) ( A mailbox rule @ not satisfied when party failed to demonstrate that proper postage was affixed); Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Dincans , 882 S.W.2d 75, 79 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th D

2014See Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 199 n. 14; Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); Villarreal, 199 S.W.3d at 31-32 ; Tex. R.App.

2014See id.

1994Scottish-American , 74 S.W. at 18 .

1994Scottish-American, 74 S.W. at 18.