Anthony Atherton v. State, 11-15-00066-CR

Appellant Anthony Atherton was charged with two counts of failure to appear; jury convicted and trial court sentenced him to 5 years confinement and a $5,000 fine on each count, to run concurrently.
On June 21, 2004, Atherton did not appear for plea hearings in two cause numbers; his counsel told the court Atherton was not present and unlikely to appear.
Defense counsel sent a notice letter to an address Atherton had given (a New York apartment); the letter was returned unopened; counsel testified defendants must stay in contact with counsel.
The court and bailiff attempted to locate Atherton at the courthouse; the judge forfeited his instanter bond after unsuccessful searches and announcements.
Bondsman Ronny Smith testified Atherton had stayed in contact for a time, then disappeared; in his view Atherton failed to provide reliable contact information and the bondsman later settled the bond.
The jury found sufficient evidence that Atherton intentionally or knowingly failed to appear; Atherton appealed challenging sufficiency, due process, and prosecutor's closing remarks; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove failure to appear	State: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Atherton: mistaken belief/ongoing contact with bondsman negated culpability	Affirmed — evidence (instanter bond, lack of contact, counsel/bailiff testimony) sufficient under Jackson standard
Due process based on alleged insufficient evidence	State: Winship/Jackson standard satisfied by evidence	Atherton: insufficient evidence, so conviction violates due process	Affirmed — because evidence sufficient, no due process violation
Prosecutor's closing argument (comments about "admission of guilt" and service)	State: arguments were fair inferences or, if improper, cured by court sustaining objections and instructing jury to disregard	Atherton: comments were improper and likely influenced verdict	Affirmed — any error cured by instruction; no preserved reversible error

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review under due process)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Texas guidance on applying Jackson standard)
Euziere v. State, 648 S.W.2d 700 (instanter bond gives prima facie notice for failure-to-appear prosecutions)
Richardson v. State, 699 S.W.2d 235 (construing Euziere: instanter bond creates prima facie showing of notice)
Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal convictions)
Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (improper jury argument generally nonconstitutional; reversible only if affects substantial rights)
Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (jury instruction to disregard generally cures improper argument)