THE ATIXBWNEY GENERAL. 

OF TEXAS 

Ausm. T-s 78711 

October 30, 1975 

The Honorable Martin D. Eichelberger Opinion No. H-728 

Criminal District Attorney 

McLennan County Re: Whether a person who has 

Waco, Texas been arrested on a warrant from 

another county and released on 

bond in the county in which he was 

arrested should be rearrested if 

the sheriff of the county which 

issued the warrant believes the 

surety is inrufficient. 

Dear Mr. Eichelberger: 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether a person who has been 

arrested on a warrant from another county and released on bond in the county 

in which he was arrested should be rearrested if the sheriff of the county which 

issued the warrant believes the surety is insufficient. 

You state that the defendant was arrested by the sheriff of McLennan County 

on seven misdemeanor warrants issued out of Dallas County. Following his 

arrest, defendant’s bail was set by a magistrate of McLennan County, and thereafter, the sheriff approved defendant’s bonds and released him from custody. 

Subsequently, the sheriff of Dallas County returned the bonds and requested that 

defendant be rearrested. You inquire whether the sheriff of McLennan County 

may properly rearrest defendant in these circumstances. 

Although a sheriff is authorized by article 17. 20 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure to accept bail bonds in misdemeanor cases, this provision applies 

only where no bail has been set or where bail has been set by a judge and the defendant is in jail. The controlling statute here, we think, is article 17. 09, which 

provides that a defendant’s bond, once given, shall be valid for his personal 

appearance “before any. . . court to which same may be transferred, and for any snd 

all subsequent proceedings had relative to the charge. I’ Section 1. The statute indicates further that,. “when a defendant has once given bail for his appearance in 

answer to a criminal charge, he shall not be required to give another bond in the 

course of the same criminal action except as herein provided. ” Section 2. 

p. 3109 
The Honorable Martin D. Eichelberger - page two (H-728) 

Section 3 of article 17.09 furnishes the only exception. It provides that: 

[ Wlhenever, during the course of the action, 

the judge or magistrate in whose court such 

action is pending finds that the bond is defective, 

excessive or insufficient in amount, or that the 

sureties, if any, are not acceptable, or for any 

other good and sufficient cause, such judge or 

magistrate may, either in term-time or in vacation, order the accused to be rearrested, and 

require the accused to give another bond in such 

amount as the judge or magistrate may deem proper. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals has indicated that this provision is to be strictly 

construed. InExparte Coker, 319 S. W. 2d 120 (Tex. Grim. App. 1958), the relator, 

after being released on=000 bond, was thereafter indicted for murder with 

malice and placed in jail. The judge had neglected, however, to order relator’s 

rearrest.‘: The Court held that, in the absence of such an order as provided in 

section 3 of article 275a (the predecessor of article 17. OS), relator was entitled 

to remain at liberty under the bond previously entered into before the magistrate. 

. In our opinion, the Coker principle is equally applicable to cases in which 

a defendant is arrested andleased on bond in a county other than the one in 

which charges against him are pending. Only the .judge of the court where the 

case is pending may determine not to accept defendant’s bond and, as a consequence thereof, order his rearrest. Although the judge may refuse to accept the 

bond “for any. . . good and sufficient cause, ” we do not believe that the sheriff of 

that county is authorized to refuse to accept the said bond for any reason. Article 

2372 p-3, V. T. C. S., dealing with the licensing and regulation of bail bondsmen 

does not presently apply to a bond written and accepted in McLennan County. 

Accordingly, it is our opinion that a defendant who has been arrested on a warrant from another county and released on bond in the county in which he was 

arrested should be rearrested only upon the issuance of an appropriate order by 

the judge before whom charges against him are pending, in accordance with article 

17.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

p. 3110 
. L 

The Honorable Martin D. Eichelberger - page three (R-728) 

SUMMARY 

A person who has been arrested on a warrant 

from another county and released on bond in the 

county in which he was arrested should be rearrested only upon the issuance of an appropriate 

.order by the judge before whom charges against 

him are pending, in accordance with the provisions 

of article 17. 09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

-Very truly yours, 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 3111