codified rule in Texas

2019In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g).

2015(Id.) (Emphasis added.) Application of this rule, however, is not warranted where the defendant relies on a codified, non-confession and avoidance defense; otherwise the rule would have the practical and undeniable effect of striking the codified defense “from the Penal Code.” See Jackson v. State, 646 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Crim.

2013PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10(c) (West 2011); see also Gallegos v. State, 828 S.W.2d 577 , 579 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (citing M.

2012“The codified rule was designed to alleviate taxpayer hardship resulting from the vagaries of the I.R.S. and the postal 13 Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884).

2012The Supreme Court quoted an earlier case explaining that “the presumption so arising is not a conclusive presumption of law, but a mere inference of fact, founded on the probability that the officers of the government will do their duty and the usual course of business; and, when it is opposed by evidence that the letters never were received, must be weighed with all the other circumstances of the case, by the jury in determining the question whether the letters were actually received or not.” Id. at 193-94 . 14 See note 15 infra. These same two rationales also supports the “prisoner mailbox”