Opinion
Nos. 10-02-00341-CR, 10-02-00342-CR.
Opinion delivered and filed May 5, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal From the County Court, Bosque County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. 3506 and 3507. Affirmed.
Walter M. Reaves, Jr., Attorney at Law, West, TX, for appellant/relator. Patricia Ferguson Coy, County Attorney for Bosque County, Meridian, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
OPINION
These appeals are two of five cases involving the same issues. We will summarily apply our ruling from another case and affirm the judgments. Hill Bail Bonds (HBB) is the surety on two bail bonds, one for $500 and one for $750, on which Kelli Jenkins is the principal and the person charged with the offense. After she failed to appear, judgment nisi was entered. She was arrested four days later. On final hearing, the court heard evidence and arguments, then entered judgment for 25% of each bond amount. HBB appeals from the ruling in each case. In two issues, HBB asserts: (1) the court abused its discretion, because it applies the same formula to all bond-forfeiture cases and did not review any factors appropriate to a determination of the amount of the remittitur; and (2) HBB is entitled to a greater remittitur because a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals was wrong because it did not take certain legislative history into account. The State initially says that the issues are not preserved for our review because no objection was made to the amount of the remittitur, to the application of the schedule, or the failure to remit the entire bond. No motion for new trial or to modify the judgment was filed. The appeal is, however, from a final judgment, and the record is clear that HBB was arguing for a greater, or complete, remittitur. Thus, we believe that the issues are properly before us. In a case involving the essentially the same facts and arguments, we determined that the court did not abuse its discretion. Burns and Hill Bail Bonds v. State, No. 10-00339-CR slip op. at 4 (Tex. App.-Waco May 5, 2004, no pet. h.). Based thereon, we overrule both of HBB's issues in this case. We affirm the judgment in each case.