Raymond Martinez v. State
04-15-00148-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2015Background
- Defendant Jose Beltran was released on a $20,000 appearance bond in 2010 with Raymond Martinez as surety.
- Multiple court settings occurred in 2011; on November 1, 2011 Beltran pleaded guilty and sentencing was continued to allow a PSI.
- A December 5, 2011 PSI setting was canceled by the court and rescheduled, but no written notice of the new January 9, 2012 sentencing date was mailed to Beltran; Martinez asserts he was not able to reach Beltran by phone.
- Beltran did not appear on January 9, 2012; a Judgment NISI was entered and later, after a forfeiture hearing, the trial court forfeited the $20,000 bond on February 17, 2015.
- Appellant Martinez challenges the forfeiture on due process grounds, arguing lack of notice invalidates the bond and requires exoneration of the surety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant/surety must receive actual notice of a court setting before bond forfeiture | Martinez: Due process requires actual notice; failure to provide notice invalidates bond and requires exoneration | State: No requirement of actual notice under Art. 22.13; burden remains on surety to prove uncontrollable circumstances to avoid forfeiture | Trial court found bond forfeited (Judgment NISI entered; $20,000 forfeiture judgment entered) |
| Whether failure to give sufficient notice is a statutory/constitutional defense to bond forfeiture | Martinez: Lack of notice renders forfeiture unconstitutional under U.S. and Texas due process provisions and invalidates bond under Art. 22.13(1) | State: Forfeiture proper absent proof of uncontrollable circumstances; statue does not mandate actual notice in these circumstances | Appellate posture: brief argues trial court abused discretion; trial court previously denied exoneration and granted forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Kubosh v. State, 241 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (describes burden and elements in bond forfeiture proceedings)
- Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (judgment nisi is prima facie proof that statutory requirements were met)
- Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. State, 273 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (judgment nisi is provisional and valid unless cause shown)
- Hernden v. State, 505 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (forfeiture occurs at time of judgment nisi)
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1951) (notice and opportunity to be heard are essential due process requirements)