### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 10

- 00526

- CV
Dave JONES , Individually and d/b/a Chachi’s Bail Bonds, Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 381st Judicial District Court , Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. DC

- 09

- 367 Honorable Jose Luis Garza , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
AFFIRMED Pro se Appellant Dave Jones, individually and d/b/a Chachi’s Bail Bonds (“Jones”), appeals a trial court’s judgment forfeiting a bail bond after the criminal defendant and principal, Gabriel Delgado, failed to appear. We affir m the trial court’s judgment.
B ACKGROUND Gabriel Delgado was charged with possession of marijuana. Delgado and Jones entered into a bail bond agreement, pursuant to which Delgado as principal and Jones as surety posted a04

- 10

- 00526

- CV

- 2

- bail bond to secure Delgado’s a ppearance at his arraignment. After Delgado failed to appear at the arraignment, the trial court entered a judgment nisi forfeiting the bail bond. Jones filed an answer, but failed to appear at the hearing. The trial court granted a default judgment in favor of the State. On appeal, Jones argues that: (1) the service of citation was defective, and (2) the State failed to present evidence of the bail bond. S ERVICE OF P ROCESS If a criminal defendant is bound by bail to appear for an arraignment, but fails to appear, his bond may be forfeited to the State unless the defendant or his surety shows good cause for the defendant ’s failure to appear. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. arts. 22.01, 22.02 (West 2009).

“ Upon entry of judgment, a citation shall issue forthwith notifying the sureties of the defendant, if any, that the bond has been forfeited, and requiring them to appear and show cause why the judgment of forfeiture should not be made final. ” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 22.03(a) (West 2009). If a surety files an answer, it waives any complaints about defects in service. See
Bowen v. State , 413 S.W.2d 915, 916 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1967) ; Pitts v. State , 734 S.W.2d 117, 118 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1987, no pet.). A judgment nisi was entered against Delgado, as principal, and Jones, as surety, for $5,000.00. The record contains a copy of the “Personal Citation to Defendant’s Suret y,” notifying “Dave Jones D/B/A Chachi’s Bail Bonds” that the Starr County District Attorney filed suit against him and that the failure to file a timely answer could result in a default judgment. Moreover, the record shows that Jones filed an answer deny ing the State’s allegations. Because Jones received the required citation, and because Jones waived any complaint regarding defects in the service by filing an answer, Jones’s first issue is overruled.04

- 10

- 00526

- CV

- 3

- T HE B OND Jones’s second issue is that the trial court erred by entering a final judgment because the State failed to introduce the bail bond into evidence. If a surety answers the State’s petition to forfeit a defendant’s bond, the State has the burden of introducing evidence of the bai l bond to be entitled to judgment. Orr v. State , 141 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 1940)

. In this case, the State requested that the trial court take judicial notice of a copy of the bail bond at the forfeiture hearing. See Kubosh v. State , 241 S.W. 3d 60, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that a trial court may take judicial notice of a bond). In addition, the judgment recites that the trial court reviewed the papers on file, which included the bail bond. See Johnson
v. State , 72 S.W.3d 346, 349 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (explaining that a recital in a trial court’s judgment is binding). Accordingly, the record establishes that the bond was before the trial court when it rendered judgment. Jones’s second issue is thus overruled. C ONCLUSION The judg ment of the trial court is affirmed.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice