Tom Benson v. State
03-15-00121-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2015Background
- Tom Benson (surety/appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of the State's motion for summary judgment in a bond-forfeiture case involving defendant-principal Brian Whipple's failure to appear.
- Benson raised an affirmative defense under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 22.13(a)(5)(A): a surety is exonerated when the principal is incarcerated in any U.S. jurisdiction within 180 days after failing to appear for a misdemeanor.
- The parties agree on four elements of the defense: (1) incarceration of the principal on bond; (2) in any U.S. jurisdiction; (3) the charge is a misdemeanor; (4) incarceration occurs within 180 days of failure to appear.
- The State argued a fifth element is required: the principal must be returned to the county of prosecution for the surety to obtain exoneration, relying on art. 22.13(b) and Safety Nat’l.
- Benson argued the statutes are plain: art. 22.13(a)(5)(A) requires only incarceration in any U.S. jurisdiction within the time limit; art. 22.13(b) merely preserves certain obligations (costs, return costs, interest) and does not add a return-to-county requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 22.13(a)(5)(A) requires return of the principal to the prosecuting county as a prerequisite to exoneration | State: Incarceration alone is insufficient; art. 22.13(b)'s reference to costs to "secure the return" contemplates return and thus implies a return-to-county requirement | Benson: Statutory text is plain — exoneration requires only incarceration in any U.S. jurisdiction within the statutory period; art. 22.13(b) merely preserves obligations and does not create an additional element | Benson argues the trial court erred by granting summary judgment; the statute does not require return to the prosecuting county and the surety’s evidence should have defeated the State’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Boylin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (plain-meaning rule; courts must not add elements to clear statutes except to avoid absurd results)
- Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (statutory construction is reviewed de novo)
- Safety National Casualty Corp. v. State, 273 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (addressing constitutionality of provisions in art. 22.13 and related issues; relied on by State for guidance)
- Tapps v. State, 294 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (every word of a statute should be given effect when interpreting statutory text)