Case Information
*1 The Attornuy General of Texas kcember 21. 1984 JIM MATTOX Ronorable 8. Tati Santieateban Opinion No. J-M-261
~upremo Court Buildlw Telex 910iE74.1287 P. 0. Box 1254a [51214752591] Austin.TX. Telecopier 5121475.0299 79711.2549 ChAirmAn Senate Natural Re:wurcee Committee P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station Austin, Texas Texas State Senatt? 7i3:711 Re: Whether coats may be bonda retained from remitted bail 714 Jackson. SuI1e 7W Deer Senator Sant Leateban: Dallas. TX. 75202JS08
21U742-9944
You first inquire whether a county has authority to from a bond that is returned to a bondsman pursuant 4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 El Paso. TX. 799052793 [91545333494] article 2372p-3 provides .section Section 13(c) of article
[t]he on appearance bonds c88e* ahall absolved of upon ,, Texas, Suite 700 of the case, and disposition aa used “ouston. TX. 770029111 herein shall mean a dismissal. acquittal, or 713l2235999 fInding of guilty on the charges made the basis of the bond. 806 Broadway. Suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 the queatlon before us relates of costs ThUA, recovery 8081147.5239 is no criminal cases remittitura bondsmen where there 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B McAllen. TX. 78501-1683 [51216824547] criminal absolved forfeiture amount of eu unfcrfeited case. of the bond. We conclude liab:Mty t’he surety who secures and is entitled bond. that, remittitur the defendant’s on the disposition of appearance the entire of a 2UO Main Plaza. Suite 400 sa.n Antonlo.TX. [51212254191] 79%2797 563 (Tex. 1936). 58 S.W;2d 168 (Tes. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1933). aff’d, 90 S.W.2d A bail bond is strictly Chapters and 44 of 22. 17. a statutory bond. See Sheppard v. Gill, the Codeof Criminal
Procedure provide! for the release on bond of a defendant pending or appeal conviction and for forfeiture the bail of a An Equal OpPOrtUnitYl vho fails to appear as specified by a ball AffIrmsWe Actlon EmPlOY
defendant may furnish security for a bail bond either by the deposit of cash or by the signatures of bondsmen who serve as sureties on his bond. Article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., regulates such bondsmen and the business of wecuting bail bonds.
Sections l?(a) and 13(b) of article 2372p-3 provide a to a ‘bondsman of a portion total amount of *2 Ronorable 8. TAti SAntiestebrm - PAW 2 (JM-261)
AppeArance bond in certein instances involving the forfeiture of the See also Code Crln. I?roc. Art. 22.16. Artfcle 17.08 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which lists the requisites of bail bond, provides In subdivision 6 that bond ahAl be conditloned on defendant’s and aurety’a pa:r:.ng ~11 neceaaery and reAsOnAble expenses peace officers rearresting incurred by sheriffs And other defendant who ViolAtea the: provisions of his bond And that such expense is in Addition to the priuCipA1 Amount specified in the bond.
We are not AwAre. however, elf 8tAtutory Authorization which empowers a (:oata from the remfttitur of bail bond on. the disposition of cAae where complies with obligation to Appear And no bond forfeiture occurs.
The domiUAnt conaideratlon in construing statute is intent of the legislature. Calvert. v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 517 S.W.Zd 777 -- (Tex. 1974). Generally, ,?I le intent and meaning of A statute discerned primarily thl? language the statute. City of Sherman v. Public Utility Cemmissi~n of TeXaS. 643 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. 1983). Unambiguous statutory language will be enforced AS written. Ex parte Roloff, 510 S.W.Zd 913 (Tex. 1974).
The clear and un~mbif;u,oua language of section 13(c) specifies that the end of A bondsmAn’s on A bond occurs on the the case t’y dismissal, Acquittsl, or findlng guilty on the charges thal: are the bASi8 of the bond. The statute provides that, At that poiot , the bondsmen is “Absolved” of liability.
“Absolve.” *a * legal term, means “to set free, or release. Aa from obligcltion, debt, or reapontibility.” Black’s LAW Dictionary 9 (5th ed. 1979). The 1AnguAge of section 13(c) does not suggest that intended that the bondsmAn remain partially liable following the disposition cAae And receive only A partial on bood due tcs e deduction for costs. statutory And case law specify the purpose of bail
Further, to secure the Appearance of defendant before the proper court Answer charges Against him. See Code Crim. Proc. Arts. 17.01, 17.02, 17.08; V.T.C.S. 237:lp-?;-$01, 2(S). The court of criminal art. Appeals repeatedly h~a reiterated the primary objective of An Aupearance bond is to secure the oresence of the defendant in court at hia or if his convictioo ia aubaeauentlv Affirmed. See Swinnea v. State, 614 S.W.2d 453 (II’ex. Grim. Api. 1981); Rx partey -81 (Tex. Grim. Ap11. 1980); Rx parted Sandoval. 5’ (TAX. Grim. App. 1979). The court of cr iminal appeals has further stated that bail is not p:r:lmsrily a revenue measure intended to be a substitution for A fine, but it is Intended to secure the trial of the rather than “to turn securities or those of his bondsman into a penalty.” See Tramnell V. State. 529. S.W.2d 528 (Tex. Crim. --- App. 1975); HcCOnathy v. State, 528 S.W.Zd 594 (Tex. Crfm. App. 1975). -- *3 Honorable R. Tati Sentieate:bem - Page 3 (311-261)
Your second question 1,nqulrea vhether A trial court has authority to tAx Costa Against A SurHy wheo the surety is absolved of liability pursuant to article 2372p-:I!, section 13(c). Baaed oo the language of same statutes and cases; by which we anaver your first question, we conclude legislature has not authorized the trial courts tex coats against A bond8mr.o. Absolved of further liability as provided by aectioo 13(c).
Additionally, other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide taxing o,E coats cases. Arts. 42.15, 42.16. thuaeraua provisions enumerete specific taxed fees See Code Crim. Proc. AgaiOSt or paid by def~wisnt 00 COnViCtiOn.
arts. 53.01. 53.04, 53.05, 53.06. 1018. 1061. 107mO79. 1083.
The legislature expressly provided that coats be taxed Against A surety IS not party on conviction. def eodent ‘a criminal cha r]le . It our opioioo if had intended that coats be taxed against the surety or be withheld surety’s remittltur on disposal the criminal charge, the legislature world have expressly so provided. We conclude that, when is absolved liability under article 2372p-3, section 13(c), neither a county oor trial court on a bond or to tax the authorized to withhold from coats against the surety, l,eapectlvely.
SUMMARY treawrer is oot authorized to deduct coats bonll returned bondsmen pursuant to article 23721w3, section court is ncmt authorized to tax coats against
a bondsmen wher, the bondsman la absolved pursuant to Article section 13(c).
J?J/f.&+ Attorney GeOerAl of Texas TOM GREEN
First AssistAnt
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant General
Honorable 8. Yetj Santieateban - Page 4 (34-261)
RICK GILPIN
ChAirmen. Opinion Cow&tee
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
ASSietAOt GenerAI
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITfEE
Rick Gllpin, Chairmao
Jon Bible
Colio csrr
8uSAn GArriaon Tony Gulllory
Jim Moellioger
Jennifer Riggs
NAnCy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood