Smith v. State, 53915
| Decision Date | 23 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53915,53915 |
| Citation | 548 S.W.2d 407 |
| Parties | Frank SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an appeal from a final judgment forfeiting a bail bond.
We must reverse this forfeiture because there is no judgment nisi to support the final judgment. The record contains a judgment nisi entered in the 147th District Court of Travis County. It states that the principal failed to appear in that court on September 15, 1975.
The final judgment, however, was entered by the 167th District Court of Travis County. It states that no sufficient cause was demonstrated by the principal for his failure to appear in "this court" on September 15, 1975. There is, however, no judgment nisi in the record stating that the principal failed to appear in the 167th District Court on September 15, 1975. 1
The recitations of the final judgment are not supported by the judgment nisi. The situation before us is similar to that confronted in Bonds v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 286 S.W.2d 313. There, we observed:
In the case at bar, the judgment nisi and the final judgment are in variance with regard to the court in which the principal failed to appear. The final judgment is not supported by the allegations of the judgment nisi. Appellant's contention must be sustained.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
1 The docket sheet establishes that the principal's cause was transferred from the 147th District Court to the 167th District Court on July 29, 1975, long before the principal defaulted on the bond.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balboa v. State, 64239
...that variances between the bond, the scire facias, and the judgment nisi are fatal to the summary judgment. They rely on Smith v. State, 548 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) and Bonds v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 286 S.W.2d 313 In Smith v. State, supra, the judgment nisi stated that the princip......
-
Deckard v. State
...against a different offense. Shropshire v. State, supra. See also Smith v. State, 567 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Smith v. State, 548 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Joe's Bonding Company v. State, 481 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Picaroni v. State, 364 S.W.2d 240 The State argues that such......
-
Alvarez v. State
...appears in the record. This Court has previously found similar contentions to have merit in George v. State, 589 S.W.2d 428 and Smith v. State, 548 S.W.2d 407. The State maintains that appellants' contentions are not supported by the record due to Criminal District Court Number Two entering......
-
George v. State, 60005
...Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 133; Peach v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 498 S.W.2d 192. This is not the problem which confronts us. In Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 548 S.W.2d 407, a judgment nisi entered in the 147th District Court of Travis County stated that appellant failed to appear in that court on......