Trammel v. State, 50753
| Decision Date | 12 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 50753,50753 |
| Citation | 529 S.W.2d 528 |
| Parties | H. H. TRAMMEL et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard C. Jenkins, Dallas, for appellants.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
GREEN, Commissioner.
This appeal is from a final bond forfeiture judgment, in which the sureties H. H. Trammel and Joe Cypert are appellants.
The appeal presents the question of whether the bond can be forfeited when the principal is placed on misdemeanor probation and violates the probationary condition to pay a fine.
The record reflects that on March 9, 1973, the principal in the appearance bond, Anita Duckworth Fogle, was charged by information in the County Criminal Court No. 3 of Dallas County with the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. She was released on a surety bond which is not involved in this appeal. This bond was subsequently forfeited for her nonappearance in court and on July 18, 1973, she was released on executing the bond in question in the penal sum of $200.00 with appellants as sureties. The bond was conditioned that the defendant-principal Fogle appear to answer the charge against her and 'for any and all subsequent proceedings had relative to the charge, until discharged by course of law.'
On October 12, 1973, defendant Fogle plead guilty and was convicted of the charge against her. Punishment was assessed at 30 days confinement, probated, and a fine of $100.00. The term of the probation of the jail sentence was extended for one year to October 12, 1974, and the fine and court costs were ordered to be paid not later than November 21, 1973. The sum of $60 was paid on the fine by defendant Fogle on the day of the judgment. No motion for new trial was filed, and no notice of appeal was given.
The balance of the fine and the court costs had not been paid by January 28, 1975, and on that date judgment nisi was entered on the bond against the principal and sureties due to the failure of defendant Fogle to appear in court. Notice was duly served on appellants, and on May 16, 1975, after a hearing, the trial court made the judgment final in the penal sum of $200.00.
In their second ground of error, appellants contend that the court erred in forfeiting the bond because no condition of the bond had been breached. We agree. See McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594 (1975).
In McConathy, supra (our Cause No. 50,574), the surety bond was forfeited because of the failure of the defendant-principal, who had been assessed a jail term, probated, and a fine, to pay the fine and court costs. The Court, in reversing the judgment, cited Articles 17.01 and 17.02, V.A.C.C.P., and said:
'The prime object or purpose of bail is to secure the presence of an accused upon trial of an accusation against him. It is not a revenue measure intended to be a substitution for a fine, but is intended to secure the trial of the alleged offender rather than turn his securities or those of his bondsman into a penalty. Grantham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gramercy Ins. Co. v. State
...United States, 82 S.Ct. 662, 665, 7 L.Ed.2d 769 (1962); United States v. Bass, 573 F.2d 258, 260 (5th Circ.1978); Trammel v. State, 529 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). 2) The government's cost and inconvenience in regaining 3) The delay caused by the principal's failure to appear. 4) T......
-
Baize v. Shaver
...S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). The State may not forfeit bond money if no condition of the bond was breached. Trammel v. State, 529 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). The order denying Tom Baize's motion to release his funds was not a proper judgment under TEX.CODE CRIM. P. ch. 22, ......
-
Safety Nat. Cas. Corp. v. State
...presence of the accused for trial, and it does not prevent the court from proceeding to trial whenever it chooses. Trammel v. State, 529 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. Cr.App.1975) and reasoning and authorities cited in Amicus Brief filed ......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 13-84-004-CR
...Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). It is not a revenue measure intended as a fine. Trammel v. State, 529 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 17.09 (Vernon 1977) states that the surety will be liable for the defendant's personal appearance before t......