Case ID: tex-crim_47/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENDERSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Fortenberry v. The State.
    No. 3006.
    Decided March 25, 1904.
    Bail Bond—Eunctus Officio.
    Where defendant gave bail bond, was convicted, appealed, and appeal was dismissed on account of defective- recognizance, and the trial court thereupon forfeited defendant’s bail bond, it is held that the latter was functus officio and judgment final thereon is reversed.
    [Motion by appellant to retax cost overruled without written opinion.—Reporter.]
    Appeal from the County Court of Knox. Tried below before Hon. G. B. Landrum.
    Appeal from a judgment final on forfeiture of bail bond.'
    The opinion states the ease.
    
      James A. Stephens and J. Henry Milam, -for appellant.
    The judgment was contrary to the law and the evidence; the principal in said bail bond having in all things complied with the conditions thereof, and said bond had become functus officio. Willson’s Code Crim. Proc., art. 309, and amendments thereto by the acts of 26th Leg. of 1899; Peacock v. State, 44 Texas, 11; Turner v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 168; Lindley v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 120; Roberts v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 64.
    
      Howard Martin,• Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HENDERSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment final-on a forfeited bail bond. It appears that appellant Fortenberry was indicted and the indictment returned into the County Court of Knox County, and gave bond with sureties to appear at a term named in said bail bond. The bond is in accord with the prescribed forms. Appellant appeared, was convicted in said county court, and then prosecuted an appeal to this court, which appeal, on account of a defective recognizance, was dismissed. After this" the county court proceeded to forfeit said bail bond, judgment nisi was had, which was afterwards perfected into a judgment final; and from that the appeal is prosecuted. Appellant contends that the bond which required Fortenberry’s appearance before the county court (and when he appeared there and was tried) became functus officio. We think this contention is correct. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.