Raymond Bernard Mondy v. State
06-16-00100-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Mondy was convicted in Hunt County of driving while his Texas license was suspended; sentenced to 180 days jail and $500 fine.
- Traffic stop on Aug. 10, 2015 for a defective brake light led Officer Henderson to discover Mondy’s suspended license and arrest him based on a prior conviction.
- The State introduced two TDPS surcharge default notices dated May 5, 2015 showing Mondy’s Washington Street address; notices included detachable payment stubs.
- Mondy testified he did not receive those May 5 notices and that he was unaware his license was suspended at the time of the stop; he presented money orders and testified he lived at the listed address for over fifty years.
- The State produced no evidence that the May 5 notices were actually mailed (no mailing envelope, return receipt, TDPS witness, or other proof of mailing date); the only State witness (Officer Henderson) did not know whether Mondy received notice.
- The trial court charged the jury on the affirmative defense that lack of actual notice defeats prosecution; the jury convicted, and Mondy appealed asserting insufficiency of evidence and due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove Mondy knowingly drove during a suspension period | State: The dated suspension notices (May 5, 2015) and TDPS preparation support presumption of actual notice | Mondy: He testified he never received the notices; State produced no proof they were mailed or that he had actual notice | Reversed—evidence insufficient because State failed to prove notices were mailed or that Mondy had actual notice |
| Whether lack of mailing proof defeats the presumption of actual notice | State: Date on notices implies mailing date | Mondy: Date alone is not proof of mailing or receipt | Court: Date on document without mailing proof is mere speculation; presumption not established |
| Whether statutory affirmative defense of lack of actual notice applies | Mondy: Invoked §521.457(d) lack-of-notice affirmative defense | State: Argued TDPS compliance and notice suffice to presume notice | Court: Affirmative-defense instruction proper; defense succeeded due to absence of mailing proof |
| Whether Mondy’s due process claim required remand or other relief | Mondy: Asserted due process violation | State: Not addressed in detail | Court: Did not address due process because acquittal rendered further consideration unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard and approach for legal-sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (courts must not uphold convictions based on speculation)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- White v. State, 458 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015) (TDPS must mail notice to address in records; State must prove mailing date)
- Podany v. State, 358 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1962) (absence of notice precludes conviction for driving on suspended license)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)