Mullins v. State

327 S.W.2d 578, 168 Tex. Crim. 349, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2560
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 24, 1959
DocketNo. 30,753
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 327 S.W.2d 578 (Mullins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mullins v. State, 327 S.W.2d 578, 168 Tex. Crim. 349, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2560 (Tex. 1959).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a bond forfeiture.

The bond forfeited was an appearance bond in the sum of $1,000 conditioned that Mullins, then in custody, who had been required to give bail on a felony non-support complaint filed with a Bell County magistrate, should make his appearance “before the Criminal District Court of said County, at its present term, instanter, at the Courthouse in the City of Killeen, in said County, and there remain from day to day, and from term to term of said Court, until discharged by due course of law, then and there to answer said accusation against him * * * .”

We judicially know that there is and was no Criminal District Court of Bell County, and that the county seat of Bell County, where the district court sits, is Belton and not Killeen.

Indictment having been returned, and Mullins having failed to appear, judgment nisi forfeiting the bond was rendered September 15, 1958.

The judgment nisi recites the obligation of the bond as being “that Mullins make his personal appearance before the honorable District Court of Bell County, Texas, at the courthouse of said county, in the town of Belton.”

It is apparent that there is a material variance between the bond and the judgment nisi. Since there was and is no Criminal District Court of Bell County, and no district court which sits at Killeen, Texas, the judgment forfeiting the appearance bond cannot be affirmed. Downs v. State, 7 Texas App. 483; Williams et al v. Statt, 130 Texas Cr. Rep. 124, 92 S.W. 2d 1036; Bonds et al v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 419, 286 S.W. 2d 313.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bob Matyastik v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995
Swaim v. State
498 S.W.2d 188 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Landrum v. State
345 S.W.2d 752 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 S.W.2d 578, 168 Tex. Crim. 349, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-state-texcrimapp-1959.