Al Maurice Williams v. the State of Texas
02-19-00305-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Appellant Al Maurice Williams failed to appear on an assault-family-violence charge; the 431st District Court entered a judgment nisi forfeiting his bail bond.
- The bail bond listed two handwritten addresses for Williams; the district clerk mailed notice of the judgment nisi to the Dallas address on the bond, and the mailing was returned as undeliverable.
- The surety, Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., answered; Williams did not appear. The trial court entered a final (agreed) judgment forfeiting the bond and ordering the surety to pay $1,249.98.
- Williams filed pro se a notice of appeal and a motion asserting he received no notice because the court mailed to the wrong address and asserting ineffective assistance and due-process violations.
- Williams’s postjudgment motion to vacate was filed more than 30 days after the final judgment; the trial court did not rule. The appellate court granted an extension to allow the appeal and considered Williams’s three issues.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding statutory notice requirements were met, the motion to vacate was untimely (trial court lacked jurisdiction), and no due-process violation was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice for bond forfeiture | Williams: mailed notice went to wrong address; he never received notice | State: Article 22.05 requires mailing to the address on the bond; mailing to that address (even if returned) satisfies notice | Mailing to one of the addresses on the bond satisfied Article 22.05; no error (overruled) |
| Motion to vacate untimely | Williams: trial court should have heard and vacated judgment for lack of notice | State: motion filed after 30 days; trial court’s plenary power expired; no jurisdiction to act | Motion was untimely; trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief after plenary power expired (overruled) |
| Due process challenge | Williams: lack of notice rendered judgment void for due-process violation | State: complied with statutory notice; no deprivation of due process proven | No due-process violation shown given compliance with Article 22.05 (overruled) |
| Ineffective assistance / entitlement to counsel | Williams: alleged ineffective assistance and asked for a fair hearing | State: no substantive argument in brief; claim not presented | Claim waived for lack of developed argument; court did not address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. State, 305 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (civil rules apply to bond forfeiture proceedings unless in conflict with criminal code)
- Smith v. State, 566 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (formal citation on principal not required under Article 22.05)
- Rodriguez v. State, 990 S.W.2d 438 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1999) (Article 22.05 satisfies civil Rule 124 alternative service concerns)
- Balboa v. State, 612 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (principal who omits address on bond cannot later claim exoneration for forfeiture)
- New York Life Ins. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) (federal standard regarding mailing to last known address; distinguished as inapplicable here)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Middleton v. Murff, 689 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1985) (untimely postjudgment motions cannot be granted once plenary power expires except in narrow subject-matter-jurisdiction situations)
- State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (judicial action after expiration of jurisdiction is a nullity)
- Wright v. State, 506 S.W.3d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (definition/characterization of a void judgment)