Christopher Spears v. State of Texas, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7174

Enriquez failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on the possession charge; capias and judgment nisi forfeiture issued on August 31, 2009.
Spears, as surety, sought exoneration under Art. 22.13 and remittitur under Art. 22.16.
Trial court held a bench trial on August 4, 2010 and entered judgment on September 24, 2010.
Judgment nisi is prima facie proof that statutory requirements were met; the State bears the burden of proof.
Appellant argued remittitur was warranted and that the State should be estopped from forfeiture due to exoneration grounds not being properly entered in a national database.
Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of remittitur and held equity did not require remittitur; estoppel against government is generally unavailable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying remittitur	Spears argues remittitur due to exoneration ground	State contests estoppel and lack of evidence for remittitur factors	No abuse; remittitur denial affirmed

Kubosh v. State, 241 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State bears burden in bond-forfeiture; judgment nisi proof of compliance)
Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (judgment nisi; due-process considerations in forfeiture)
Castaneda v. State, 138 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (statutory defenses; prima facie case and defenses after burden shift)
Allegheny Cas. Co. v. State, 163 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.) (equitable defenses and remittitur considerations)
In re S.A.P., 156 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. 2005) (equitable estoppel generally not applicable to governmental entities)
McKenna v. State, 247 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factors for remittitur: willfulness, compensation, hardship; discretion of trial court)
Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. State, 305 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (criminal appeal; jurisdiction and bond-forfeiture framework)