Sonia Olivarez, D/B/A Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds v. State
This text of Sonia Olivarez, D/B/A Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds v. State (Sonia Olivarez, D/B/A Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00317-CR
Sonia Olivarez, d/b/a
Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. B200200040
Opinion
Sonia Olivarez dba Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds appeals from the denial of her motion for a special bill of review under article 22.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.[1] To date, Olivarez has failed to file a docketing statement. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.
The Clerk of this Court notified Olivarez by letter dated September 26, 2005 that no docketing statement had been received and warned her that the appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not file one within twenty-one days. No response has been received to this notice.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c) provides for the involuntary dismissal of a civil appeal if the appellant has failed to comply with “a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.” The procedural rules for civil appeals apply to bond forfeiture appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.44 (Vernon 1979); McCluskey v. State, 64 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); see also Dees v. State, 865 S.W.2d 461, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (procedural rules for civil trials apply to bond forfeiture proceedings in trial court).
There are filing fees and other court costs normally associated with civil appeals which are not ordinarily imposed in an appeal from a criminal conviction.[2] See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.005, 51.207 (Vernon 2005); Tex. R. App. P. 5; Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120 (Tex. Jul. 21, 1998). In the past, this Court has not traditionally required the payment of filing fees or other court costs in a bond forfeiture appeal. However, it appears that this practice is contrary to the law.
In Dees, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited article 22.10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the proposition that “civil court costs may be assessed in a bail bond forfeiture proceeding.” 865 S.W.2d at 462 (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 22.10 (Vernon Supp. 2005)).
Following the holding of Dees, it appears that all costs traditionally associated with a civil appeal should be imposed in an appeal from a bond forfeiture proceeding. Thus, we conclude that the $125 filing fee and the filing fees for pleadings should be assessed in such an appeal. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207; Tex. R. App. P. 5; Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120.
To date however, this Court has not required the payment of such fees. Because we have not previously required the payment of such fees in bond forfeiture appeals, we will not do so in this appeal or in any bond forfeiture appeal currently pending in this Court.
Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. Tex. R. App. P. 12.1(b); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120; see also Tex. R. App. P. 5; 10th Tex. App. (Waco) Loc. R. 6. Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Olivarez has failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court requiring Olivarez to file a docketing statement within twenty-one days. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
(Justice Vance concurs with a note: A docketing statement is for administrative purposes only and does not affect our jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 32.4. Dismissal as a sanction is, in effect, a “death penalty,” which precludes consideration of the merits of the appellant’s claim. Under the law developed to evaluate trial-court dismissals of civil proceedings as sanctions, such a sanction must be “just.” TransAmerican Natural Gas v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). That means a direct relationship must exist between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed. Id. Furthermore, a permissible sanction should be no more severe than required to satisfy legitimate purposes. Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). This means that a court must consider relatively less stringent sanctions first to determine whether lesser sanctions will fully promote compliance, deterrence, and discourage further abuse. Id. Our own precedent holds that “the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to forfeiture proceedings under article 18.18(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” F&H Investments Inc. v. State, 55 S.W.3d 663, 668, (Tex.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sonia Olivarez, D/B/A Sonia Olivarez Bail Bonds v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonia-olivarez-dba-sonia-olivarez-bail-bonds-v-sta-texapp-2005.