Case Name: Oliver RICARD et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1961-06-14
Citations: 350 S.W.2d 938
Docket Number: No. 33297
Parties: Oliver RICARD et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 350
Pages: 938–940

Head Matter:
Oliver RICARD et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 33297.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 14, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1961.
John J. Fagan, Dallas, for appellants.
Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., James M. Williamson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
This is a bond forfeiture proceeding. This record shows without question that prior to the entry of the final judgment appellant had been arrested at the sureties' expense, had appeared before the court, plead guilty, was assessed a jail term, and was serving such term at the time of the entry of the judgment in the bond forfeiture proceeding.
This is the type of case envisioned by Article 439, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., which reads as follows:
"If, before final judgment is entered against the bail, the principal appear or be arrested and lodged in jail of the proper county, the court may, at its discretion, remit the whole or part of the sum specified in the bond or recognizance."
The court in the case at bar appeared to be laboring under the impression that he had no such discretion except in a certain limited type of cases.
In compliance with the rule set forth in the opinion of this Court on rehearing in Williams v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 265 S.W.2d 92, we hold the judgment of forfeiture 'to be excessive in the sum of $250; and, accordingly, if appellee files a remit-titur in that amount within 20 days, the judgment will he reformed and affirmed; otherwise, the cause will be reversed and remanded.