Opinion
No. 05-03-00397-CV.
May 17, 2004.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-50882-L.
Affirmed.
Before Justices JAMES, WRIGHT, and BRIDGES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Superior Bail Bonds appeals the trial court's judgment ordering Superior Bail Bonds to pay $50,000 in the underlying bond forfeiture proceeding. In a single issue, Superior argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial on the grounds that the trial court's judgment was invalid and unenforceable. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
On May 12, 2002, Superior posted a criminal appearance bond on Maximino Salinas in the amount of $50,000. On August 14, 2002, Salinas failed to appear in court, and a bond forfeiture was ordered and judgment nisi signed. On December 18, 2002, the trial court entered its final judgment ordering Superior to pay the State $50,000. Superior filed a motion for new trial in which it argued Salinas was not given notice of the judgment nisi as provided in article 22.05 of the code of criminal procedure. As a result, Superior argued, the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over Salinas, and the trial court's judgment was therefore unenforceable against Salinas. The trial court denied Superior's motion for new trial, and this appeal followed.
In a single issue, Superior argues the trial court erred in overruling its motion for new trial. Although Superior does not complain that it did not receive notice of the bond forfeiture, Superior asserts that, because Salinas did not receive the notice provided for in article 22.05, the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this matter. Article 22.05 provides that it shall not be necessary to give notice to the defendant as principal on the bond unless he has furnished his address on the bond, in which event notice shall be mailed to the defendant at the address on the bond. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 22.05 (Vernon 1989). However, formal service of citation on the principal is not required nor contemplated by article 22.05. Smith v. State, 566 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Thus, although the record indicates Salinas was not provided notice under article 22.05, this did not render the judgment forfeiting the bond erroneous. See id. Accordingly, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in denying Superior's motion for new trial. We overrule Superior's single issue.