IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 06-0336

════════λ= 2;═══

Armando Ramos, Sr. = et=20 al.,

Petitioners,

Dr. Ian Richardson = &=20 Valley Baptist Medical Center, et al., Respondents

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══

PER=20 CURIAM

=20 Petitioners Armando Ramos, an incarcerated pro se litigant, and = members=20 of his family originally brought medical malpractice actions against = respondents=20 Dr. Ian Richardson and Valley Baptist Medical Center. The trial court = dismissed those=20 suits on February 17, 2005, for noncompliance with the expert report=20 requirements of section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies = Code.=20 The petitioners appealed. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure = required the=20 notices of appeal to be filed by March 21, 2005. See Tex. R. App. = P. 26.1, 4.1(a).[1] The petitioners=20 claim Ramos delivered signed notices of appeal to the prison=92s = outgoing mailbox=20 on March 9, 2005, for prison authorities to place in the = United = States=20 mail. But the notices of appeal were not stamped =93filed=94 by the = clerk=92s office=20 of the court of appeals until March 22, 2005. The court of appeals = dismissed the=20 appeals, holding it was without jurisdiction because the petitioners=92 = notices of=20 appeal were not timely filed within the plenary thirty-day period after = entering=20 judgment. ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.=97Corpus Christi 2006, pet. filed); = see=20 Tex. R. Civ. P. = 329b(d); Tex. R. App.=20 P. 26.1. We reverse the court of appeals=92 judgment and = reinstate the=20 appeals.

=20 On March 4, 2005, the = petitioners timely=20 filed exceptions to the trial court=92s order of dismissal. The = petitioners argue=20 such exceptions extended the timetable for their notices of appeal to = ninety=20 days under Rule 26.1(a)(2) of the Texas Rules = of=20 Appellate Procedure. We need not address this argument because the = petitioners=20 waived it by failing to advance it in their petition for review. See=20 Tex. R. App. P. = 55.2 (stating=20 that a petitioner=92s brief on the merits must be confined to = issues or=20 points stated in the petition for review).

=20 In the alternative, the petitioners argue their notices of appeal = were=20 timely filed under the =93mailbox rule,=94 which states a document is = deemed timely=20 filed if it is sent to the proper clerk by first-class mail in a = properly=20 addressed, stamped envelope on or before the last day for filing and is = received=20 not more than ten days beyond the filing deadline. Tex. R. Civ. = P. 5; Tex. R. App. P. = 9.2(b)(1). Rule 9.2(b)(2) of=20 the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, entitled =93Proof of Mailing,=94 = adds the=20 following:

Though it = may=20 consider other proof, the appellate court will accept the following as=20 conclusive proof of the date of mailing:

(A) =20 a legible postmark affixed by the United = States Postal=20 Service;

(B) =20 a receipt for registered or certified mail if = the=20 receipt is endorsed by the United States Postal Service; or

(C)=20 a certificate of mailing by the United States = Postal=20 Service.

Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(2). Rule 9.2(b)(2) = makes it clear=20 that the petitioners have the burden of providing some measure of proof = that=20 their notices of appeal were placed in the United = States=20 mail on or before March 21, 2005. Such proof is present in the record in the form of the filing letter = accompanying the=20 petitioners=92 notices of appeal and the certificate of service, which = both state=20 the notices of appeal were placed in the =93outgoing prison mailbox=94 = on March 9,=20 2005. The respondents argue that, for purposes of the =93mailbox = rule,=94 placing=20 the notices of appeal into the outgoing prison mailbox is not the = equivalent of=20 placing them into the United=20 States mail. See Wembley Inv. Co. v. Herrera, 11 S.W.3d 924, = 928 (Tex.=20 1999) (=93[W]hen the sender of a document relies on office routine or = custom to=20 support an inference that the document was mailed, the sender must = provide=20 corroborating evidence that the practice was actually carried out.=94). = But we=20 have held on more than one occasion that an inmate who does everything = necessary=20 to satisfy timeliness requirements must not be penalized if the document = is=20 ultimately filed tardily because of an error on the part of officials = over whom=20 the inmate has no control. See, e.g., = Williams v.=20 T.D.C.J.-I.D., 142 S.W.3d 308, 309-10 (Tex. 2004); Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d = 681, 684=20 (Tex.=20 2004). In Williams, for example, an inmate=92s docketing = statement=20 was not filed by the filing deadline solely because of an error by the = clerk=92s=20 office of the court of appeals. 142 S.W.3d at = 309.=20 Because the inmate =93did everything necessary to comply with the = rules,=94 we=20 held he could not be prejudiced. Id.=20 at 310. And in Warner, we similarly declined to = penalize an inmate who timely delivered a document to the prison = mailbox. 135 S.W.3d at 684. In this case, the record = indicates Ramos=20 did everything necessary to comply with the rules by placing the notices = of=20 appeal in the outgoing prison mailbox on March 9, 2005. It is not clear = when=20 prison officials placed the notices of appeal in the United = States=20 mail, but because they were received by the clerk on March 22, 2005, it = is=20 logical to assume they were placed in the mail, as was required under = the rules,=20 on or before March 21, 2005. Though the respondents contend Ramos could = just as=20 easily have given the notices of appeal to a family member who filed = them in=20 person after the March 21, 2005 deadline, there is nothing in the record = to=20 suggest that occurred.

=20 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and, without = hearing oral=20 argument, we reverse the court of appeals=92 = judgment and=20 reinstate the petitioners=92 appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.

OPINION=20 DELIVERED: June 29, 2007

^[1]=20 The court of appeals acted under the impression that the trial court=92s = order=20 became final on March 19, 2005. This is incorrect because March 19 fell = on a=20 Saturday. Rule 4.1(a) states:

The day of an act, event, or default after = which a=20 designated period begins to run is not included when computing a period=20 prescribed or allowed by these rules, by court order, or by statute. The = last=20 day of the period is included, but if that day is a Saturday, Sunday, or = legal=20 holiday, the period extends to the end of the next day that is not a = Saturday,=20 Sunday, or legal holiday.

Tex. R.=20 App. P. = 4.1(a).