Fly v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Kirby v. State

    416 So. 2d 1010 (Ala. 1982)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that entry of nolle prosequi as to three charges and finding of guilt as to one charge did not release sureties from liability on bond default occurring before trial was held

    Although the State declined to prosecute three of the cases pending against the defendant-principal, the sureties bound themselves for the appearance of the defendant and they were liable for his default. The bondsmen were not released from liability merely because the cases were nol-prossed. United States v. Sulvani, 4 F. Supp. 775, 776 (W.D.N.Y. 1933); Busby v. State, 18 Ala. App. 549, 550, 93 So. 372, 373 (1922); Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977). The appellants request that the amount of the forfeiture be decreased by $20,000.

  2. Ex Parte Lerma

    561 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 4 times

    Neither petitioner had been previously convicted of a criminal offense in the State of Texas or in Mexico. The primary object or purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the defendant in court upon the trial of the offense charged. Ex parte Vasquez, Tex.Cr.App., 558 S.W.2d 477 (1977); Fly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 550 S.W.2d 684; McConathy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 594. While bail should be sufficiently high to assure the defendant's presence, it is not to be used as an instrument of oppression.

  3. Ex Parte Vasquez

    558 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 201 times
    Finding that $100,000 bail in 1977 capital-murder proceeding was excessive when defendant testified that he was indigent and that he was merely the getaway driver during the robbery-murder; uncle promised a job if defendant were released and he had no known criminal history or history of failing to appear in court

    The burden of proof is on petitioner for reduction in bail to show that bail set is excessive. Ex parte August, 552 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977); Ex parte Clark, 537 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Holliman v. State, 485 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). The primary object or purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the defendant in court upon the trial of the accusation against him. Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977); McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975). While bail should be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with, the power to require bail is not to be used so as to make it an instrument of oppression.

  4. Saf. Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. State

    No. 14-08-00659-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2009)

    Further, issuance of an arrest warrant, without the principal actually being rearrested and released on another bond, does not nullify a prior appearance bond obligation. Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684, 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977). Nothing in our record indicates Ganjizadeh was rearrested and released on any other bond.

  5. Bonds v. State

    911 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that appellant was not exonerated from liability because he did not argue any of the four causes provided in article 22.13, which are the only grounds for exonerating a defendant and his sureties upon forfeiture of a bond

    See Op.Tex.Att'y Gen. No. JM-261 (1984) (noting that Article 2372p-3, § 13(c) applies to situations where there is no forfeiture of the bond); see also Garcia v. State, 686 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1985, no writ) (recommending to Legislature that words "Prior to the entry of a judgment nisi" be added as preface to Section 13(c)). It is well settled in Texas that mere subsequent appearance by the accused is not sufficient cause for complete remission of the forfeiture. State v. Warren, 17 Tex. 283, 284-85 (1856); Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977); Makeig v. State, 802 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1990), aff'd, 830 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Otherwise, the defendant would not really be bound to appear as required by the terms of his recognizance, but would be able to create continuances at will.

  6. Makeig v. State

    802 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. App. 1990)   Cited 26 times

    It is settled law that mere subsequent appearance by the accused is not sufficient cause for complete remission of the forfeiture. State v. Warren, 17 Tex. at 284-85; Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977). If it were, the defendant would not really be bound to appear as required by the terms of his recognizance, but would be able to create continuances at will.

  7. Neeson v. State

    722 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    When the post-indictment capias issued and was executed, the bond, by its terms, became an appearance bond. "The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of a defendant at court upon trial of the accusations against him." Fly v. State, 550 S.W.2d 684, 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (emphasis added); see also McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975). Consequently, we hold that appellant's presence was secured for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act on October 27, when the bond became operative, to the same degree as if she had been taken into physical custody on that date and held in jail pending the trial of her cause.