Tinker v. State, s. 56328
| Decision Date | 08 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | 56329,Nos. 56328,No. 1,s. 56328,1 |
| Citation | 561 S.W.2d 200 |
| Parties | Dorriss TINKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Donald B. Dailey, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.
William B. Mobley, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Eric Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., Nueces Co., Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Before TOM G. DAVIS, DALLY and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
This is a joint appeal from judgments forfeiting bail bonds. The judgments nisi entered on December 22, 1976, reflect that on October 22, 1976, principals Manuel Martinez, Jr.'s and Enedina R. Rosales' bonds of $2,500 each were forfeited for failure to appear when their causes were called for trial. Appellant-surety filed general denials on December 27, 1976. On April 20, 1977, the State filed motions for summary judgment which were controverted by her. On May 6, 1977 a hearing was held on the State's motions. Prior to considering the motions for summary judgment, the State moved to dismiss the judgments nisi. The court overruled the motions to dismiss, but continued the hearing on the State's motions to June 3, 1977, at which time the State's motions for summary judgment were granted subsequent to the State's reurging its intent to dismiss the judgments nisi. On June 13, 1977, appellant-surety filed motions for new trial which were overruled by operation of law July 29, 1977. Appeals were perfected by the filing of appeal bonds on August 17, 1977.
The appellant brings forth two points of error.
I. The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff's (State's) motions for non-suit.
II. The trial court erred in granting summary judgments for the plaintiff since the appellant-surety's controverting affidavits raised a fact issue as to whether good cause was shown for the non-appearance of the defendant-principals.
Because of our disposition of Point of Error I, we do not reach II.
The State argues alternatively that either it never did request non-suits or, if it did Rule 164, "Non-Suit" Tex.R.Civ.P., does not apply to bail bond forfeitures.
The records reflect the following exchange prior to the hearing on the State's motions for summary judgment on May 6, 1977:
The docket sheet entries of May 6, 1977 are: "Motion to dismiss, overruled."
The hearing was continued to June 3, 1977, when the following occurred:
Clearly, the State moved for dismissals.
The State contends that Rule 164, Tex.R.Civ.P., does not apply to bail bond forfeitures, but cites no authority for this position.
Article 22.10, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., "Scire Facias Docket" states:
"When a forfeiture has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...to the civil law and rules of procedure is called for. Blue v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 341 S.W.2d 917, 919 (1960); Tinker v. State, 561 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).2 All rules cited herein are Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.3 Entry of the judgment is "the ministerial act by which an endu......
-
Soileau v. State, No. 14-02-01303-CR (Tex. App. 1/20/2004), 14-02-01303-CR.
...Review and Legal Standards Although criminal in nature, forfeiture proceedings are governed by the rules of civil procedure. Tinker v. State, 561 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 22.10 (Vernon Supp. 2004). In moving for summary judgment......
-
Williams v. State
...Brewer v. State, 576 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); State ex. rel. Vance v. Routt, 571 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Tinker v. State, 561 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Blue v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 341 S.W.2d 917 (1960); Glenn v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 236 S.W.2d 809 (1951); General B......
-
E T J v. State, 05-88-00390-CV
...1986) (the requirements governing an appeal from a certification order "are as in civil cases generally"); cf. Tinker v. State, 561 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Nonetheless, I would hold that the application of section 56.01(b) to the facts of this case is unconstitutional, because ......