Caudillo v. State, 52766
| Decision Date | 06 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52766,52766 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | Joseph CAUDILLO et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
H. Thomas Hirsch, Odessa, on appeal only, for appellants.
Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., and James C. Butts, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a final judgment forfeiting an appearance or bail bond in the sum of $2,500.
The record reflects that on August 23, 1975, Joseph Caudillo was charged by indictment with aggravated rape. On that date he was released on a $2,500 bail bond with Odell and Thedis Walker as sureties. On November 20, 1975, the principal on the bond, Caudillo, failed to appear for a pretrial hearing in district court. The bond was ordered forfeited. A judgment nisi was formally entered on December 16, 1975. On February 23, 1976, a hearing was held to determine why the judgment of forfeiture should not be made final. At the conclusion of the hearing, a final judgment was ordered, which was formally signed April 23, 1976.
Appellants' first contention is that the court erred in entering a final judgment 'for the reason that there was no evidence that the defendant or his attorney or the sureties ever received notice of the November 20, 1975, pre-trial hearing.'
Article 22.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., provides that certain causes, 'and no other' will exonerate the defendant-principal and his sureties, if any, from liability upon the forfeiture taken. Appellant apparently relies upon § 3 thereof, which provides in part:
Appellants contend that since the principal, sureties, etc., did not receive notice of the setting that this was an uncontrollable circumstance which prevented the principal's appearance.
The bail bond here involved required the principal to appear instanter in the court in which he was indicted 'and there remain from day to day and term to term of said Court, until discharged by due course of law, then and there to answer said accusation and any and all subsequent proceedings had relative to the charge against him, this obligation shall become void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.'
In International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), we held a similar worded bond met the requisites of Article 17.08, § 5, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., so as to give the principal notice as to when to appear, and thus, the principal there had not shown an uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance. We likewise hold in the instant case. Further, the testimony of the principal Caudillo at the hearing on February 23, 1976, reflected that he knew of the November 20, 1975, setting and had discussed the setting with one of his attorneys prior thereto. Another of the principal's attorneys did testify that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- George v. State
-
Johnson v. State
...knowingly failed to appear in accordance with the terms of his release. See Euziere, 648 S.W.2d at 702;see also Caudillo v. State, 541 S.W.2d 617, 618–19 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (instanter bond was sufficient to meet State's burden of proof when appellant's testimony indicated that appellant ha......
-
Euziere v. State
...to show the required mental state since it could not establish that appellant had notice of the court appearance. In Caudillo v. State, 541 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the defendant was held under an almost identical bail bond. We held, citing, International Fidelity Insurance Company v. ......
-
Alvarez v. State
...The State relies upon International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Caudillo v. State, 541 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) for the proposition that the "instanter" language is sufficient notice as to when the principal was to appear. These cases are di......