Alex R. Hernandez, Doing Business as Hernandez Bonding Company and Ruben A. Marin v. State

NUMBER 13-99-144-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

ALEX R. HERNANDEZ DOING

BUSINESS AS HERNANDEZ BONDING

COMPANY AND RUBEN A. MARIN, Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

AND

NUMBER 13-99-145-CV

____________________________________________________________________

ALEX R. HERNANDEZ DOING

BUSINESS AS HERNANDEZ BONDING

COMPANY AND CUTBERTO S.

FLORES, Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

AND

NUMBER 13-99-147-CV

____________________________________________________________________

ALEX R. HERNANDEZ DOING

BUSINESS AS HERNANDEZ BONDING

COMPANY AND MIGUEL ANGEL

QUINTERO, Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

AND

NUMBER 13-99-149-CV

____________________________________________________________________

ALEX R. HERNANDEZ DOING

BUSINESS AS HERNANDEZ BONDING

COMPANY AND JULIAN MENDEZ, JR., Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

AND

NUMBER 13-99-150-CV

____________________________________________________________________

ALEX R. HERNANDEZ DOING

BUSINESS AS HERNANDEZ BONDING

COMPANY AND EVARISTO ORTIZ

MARTINEZ, Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Refugio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Justice Yañez

These five cases were consolidated on appeal at the request of appellant, Alex R. Hernandez, d/b/a Hernandez Bonding Company ("Hernandez").⁽¹⁾ Also listed as appellants are Ruben A. Marin, Cutberto S. Flores, Miguel Angel Quintero, Julian Mendez, Jr., and Evaristo Ortiz Martinez.⁽²⁾ Appellants challenge the trial court's judgments awarding to the State post-judgment interest on bail bonds forfeited by Marin, Flores, Quintero, Mendez, and Martinez. We affirm as modified.

Marin, Flores, Quintero, Mendez, and Martinez were indicted for a variety of offenses and posted bond, with Hernandez as surety for the bonds.⁽³⁾

None of the indicted defendants appeared on their appointed court dates, and separate judgments nisi, declaring forfeiture, were issued for the defendants. On December 21, 1998, the trial court held hearings to determine whether Marin, Flores, Quintero, Mendez, and Martinez had just cause for failing to appear on their respective trial dates. Following the hearings, at which Marin, Flores, Quintero, Mendez, and Martinez failed to appear, the court rendered final judgment, ordering that the State recover the value of the bonds, plus costs of suit and post judgment-interest.

The appellants challenge the award of post-judgment interest. Because this is the sole issue raised in each of the appeals, and the facts of each case are identical, we will address these five appeals with one opinion.

Appellants argue that a judgment on a bond forfeiture may not include post-judgment interest. The State concedes this point. The parties disagree as to the remedy available on appeal.

We agree that the trial court erred in awarding post-judgment interest. This issue has been addressed by the Dallas Court of Appeals. Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, 797 S.W.2d 275, 277-278 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd). The court noted that a "penal judgment, that is, a judgment in the nature of a fine, must not exceed the penal sum fixed by the bond." Id. "A judgment on such a bond is in the nature of punishment." Id. (quoting Magless v. State, 112 Tex. Crim. 646, 18 S.W.2d 669, 670 (1929)). The "sum recoverable for noncompliance with the conditions of a bail bond is a penalty." Magless, 18 S.W.2d at 670. Awarding interest on a bail bond would result in the forfeiting party being required to pay an amount in excess of the penalty set by the bond.

The award of post-judgment interest was error. Issue number one is sustained. We MODIFY the judgment to delete the award of post-judgment interest, and AFFIRM as modified.

____________________________________

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

24th day of August, 2000.

1. Hernandez is an appellant in all five of these appeals.

2. Marin is appellant in cause number 13-99-144-CV, Flores in cause number 13-99-145-CV, Quintero in cause number 13-99-147-CV, Mendez in cause number 13-99-149-CV, and Martinez in cause number 13-99-150-CV.

3. Marin and Flores were both indicted for possession of marihuana, more than fifty pounds, less than 2000 pounds, in unrelated cases. Marin's bond was set at $50,000, Flores's at $100,000.

Quintero, Mendez, and Martinez were each indicted for possession of marihuana, less than fifty pounds, more than five pounds, in unrelated cases. Quintero's bond was set at $25,000, Mendez's at $15,000, and Martinez's at $10,000.

All the appellants forfeited their bonds on the same day, although the judgments nisi were issued at different times before the actual forfeiture hearings.