Jeremy Lynn Figueredo v. State, 572 S.W.3d 738

Jeremy Lynn Figueredo was arraigned on felony burglary and evading-arrest charges, posted separate bonds for each offense, and later posted separate bonds after indictment; he missed a pretrial docket call on August 12, 2015.
A capias and judgment nisi were issued for failure to appear; Figueredo was arrested August 14, 2015.
A single indictment (Cause No. 1256H) later charged two counts of bail jumping—one tied to each underlying charge—even though both failures to appear were for the same time/place.
The State dismissed the underlying burglary charge but did not dismiss the corresponding bail-jumping count; Figueredo was separately convicted earlier of evading arrest and received a ten-year sentence.
At the bench trial on the bail-jumping counts, defense counsel stipulated Figueredo had notice of the hearing; the trial court convicted him of two counts of third-degree-felony bail jumping and sentenced him to three years on each count, concurrent with each other and his ten-year sentence.
Figueredo appealed, raising: (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s stipulation about notice, and (3) double-jeopardy challenge to multiple bail-jumping prosecutions for a single missed appearance.

Issue	Figueredo's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional/knowing failure to appear	State failed to prove Figueredo personally knew of obligation to appear; no direct notice to him shown	Trial counsel stipulated Figueredo had notice; bondsman and prior counsel testimony and court files support awareness	Evidence legally sufficient—stipulation and other testimony supported knowing failure to appear; Issue one overruled
Ineffective assistance of counsel for stipulating Figueredo had notice	Stipulation surrendered a contested factual element and deprived Figueredo of a defense; counsel should not have conceded notice	Stipulation can be a tactical choice; record does not show counsel’s performance fell below professional norms or that prejudice is shown	Ineffective-assistance claim fails—appellant did not overcome presumption counsel’s conduct was reasonable or show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; Issue two overruled
Double jeopardy from prosecuting multiple bail-jumping counts for one missed appearance	Multiple prosecutions for a single time/place appearance violate double jeopardy	Each bond is a separate contractual condition to appear; failure to comply with each bond is a separate unit of prosecution	No double-jeopardy violation—each separate bond creates its own unit of prosecution; multiple bail-jumping convictions permissible; Issue three overruled

Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (double-jeopardy claims are category-two Marin rights and generally not forfeitable)
Ex parte Marascio, 471 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (analysis of unit-of-prosecution for bail jumping and gravamen-focus test)
Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (conviction denies double jeopardy when legislature did not intend multiple punishments)
Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (unit-of-prosecution determined by legislative intent)
Ex parte Benson, 459 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (separate acts can constitute separate units of prosecution under same statute)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson sufficiency review in Texas)
Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility and conflicts)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (sufficiency measured against hypothetically correct jury charge)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Texas adoption of Strickland standard)