Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )


Menu:
  •                                The Attorney’ General                               of Texas
    October   22,     1985
    JIM  MATTOX
    Altorney General
    supr0m9 c4m 8ullelw           Eouorablc    8.    Tati      !Lturtieeteban                      ~piaion   AO. Jx-363
    P. 0. BOX 12540               chnirmnn
    Aualln, TX 79711-2546         Natural  Rc~ourcc~   Ctmdttec                                    Re:    Authority   of A judge   to
    5rZN7+2501                    Texas StAtA SeaAts                                               restrict     the  type  of   ball
    T*Ior 91w57L1357
    P. 0. Box 12068, C.al@tol Station                                available    to s defendant
    l*lecoplw 512l47M295
    Austin,  Texas     78’l:ll
    Dear   Senator      Saatimteban:
    You have   recpesttd  our   opinion                    regarding      the   authority    of A
    magistrate     to  restrict  the  type    of                  bail    available     to AIL accused.
    4524 Alber(a me., swe lb0     Artlclc    17.01 of the Code of Criminnl                     Procedure      define6   “ball”  AS
    El Paso. TX. 7-2793
    915i53&348(                                the   secu~clty given by the accused              that he till
    appear     md    ausver  before      the    proper    court    the
    1001TOXEE.sutte 700                       sccusatj,ao     brought   against      bin.    md    Includes    a
    Nou¶lon. lx. T7w2-3111                    ball   bor,d, or a personal    bond.      (Papbaeis    added).
    7lY223YU16
    l-bus * Gill”        16 merely        an undertaking          by au accuecd,       for the
    purpose     of cffecl,i.ng      his    release.        It    cnn takn      At lesst   two forms
    a06 aroadw*y. SUIIO312
    under    the   statute,       A “ball      bond”    or     a “persoual       boud.”   These   two
    Lubbock. TX. 794013(79
    Ka747a236                    kinds     of   bail      ‘51 not      appear      to      be    exclusive      aud.  gloen    the
    magistrate’s      broa’i    discretlou       in fixing       ball,   other    forms of security
    may be autbo&ed,             See
    -     V.T.C.S.     Art.     1715.
    4309 N. Tmlh. Sub B
    YcAlm. TX 76501-1685
    512m245.47                          One   form of “6ecurlty”               specifically         authortied    16    the    ball   bond
    demribed     in nrtic:lc 17.02:
    2w Makl Plur. sutte 4m                             A ‘bail    bond’ 16 a vritten          undertaking        eutered
    San Antonlo. TX. 762052797
    Fnto b!r the defendant            and his       suretIc       for tbc
    512a25-4191
    sppearance       of   the prlnclpsl       therein       before     sow
    court    (81 magistrate      to au6ver       A criminal        ~CCU~A-
    tioa;    p:ov%ded,      hovever,     that    the    defendant      upou
    execution      of 6uch ball       bond may d6po6it           vith   the
    cuetodl6n       of   fund6    of    the   court      in    which    the
    orosemtlon        IA vendian     current    wncy      of th6 United
    itot.      1,~ the &aunt      of. the bond 10. liau of having
    euretGi         eignlng      the      tame.    . . .        (EMPHASIS
    iddcd),-
    Another  form         of    “security”     specifically            6uthorlred    is    the     personal
    bond deecribad          III article    17.03:
    ..    I
    \.
    HOaOrAble      H.     TAti        SAntieAtebAn           -   IPAge     2    (JH-363)
    The     court           before    whom the        cane          16    pending    AA~.      in
    it6         discretion,            reltaee           the        defendnat        on       hi6
    perrooal            bond without             6ureties        or      other    6ecurlty.
    In   light     of        the6e     conslderc&lone,                YOU AAk:
    1.         May     the    court       require        A     defendsot      to   po6t
    bail         fa    CA6h only?
    2.        May the           court  Bet the amount of boil                            but
    Agree        to nccept           A caeh percentage in lieu of                          that
    AWUUt?
    3. iay  the   tour t 6Ct   A  differential    boll
    Amount depending   upon the  type  of bond.    &.      A
    cash bond of $1,000 or A surety   bmd of $lO,OOOt
    In Ex psrte    DeAtoa.   582 !;,W.2d 151 (Tex.                                       Crlm.  App. 1979).   the
    trill    court  hsd ordered   A defendant   to post  “A                                     $15,000 cn6b bond    for
    nppeal    purposes.”   The court   of criminal  nppesls                                      held the&
    [t]he         Authority
    grs,ated     the   court    in    Article
    44.04         to . . .
    ‘impose    reasonAble      coaditloas      on
    bail pending   the fia%:tity     of hi6 convictioa’        does
    not vest  the court    with   the discretion       to require
    A cash or    surety    bond   to    the  exclusion      of   the
    other.
    582 S.U.2d    At 153.    LiMee.       la Ex parte     Rodriguez.    583 S.Y.2d 792
    (Tex.   Crib.   App.   1979).   the C,DUrt of    Criminal    Appeal6   said  that A
    requirement    th6t A bond “be ]wsted        ia  cssh   is  not nuthorized     under
    lrtlcle   17.02.”    583 S.W.2d At 793.      We conclude    that A mAgi6trnte    may
    not require    la AccuAed to post    il bail  bond in CASb only.
    As to your second questl.oa,           boil      16 by     6tAtUt6     the 6ecurlty
    required    by A magistrate     And May Include           A boil     bond or A persoaal
    bead.     We constnse   your question      to inquire       whether     A court my set A
    “boil    bond”   fn A certain     6mount    nad then       agree     to   Accept    A leseer
    pcrceatnge     la lieu   of the face ammat           of   the “boil      bond.”     Although
    SuCb practiCs      hA6 6ppAreUtly     existed      ia VAriOU6      TexA6 jurl6dictions,
    6ee 7 8. Wl116oa,      Texao CriailUll     Forms,     147.19     (Texas    Prsctice    1977).
    rdo       not believe    it  i6  sutlwrired      by section         17.02.     We offer     no
    opiaioa    oa the coadltioa6    that A magi6trate          May require       in conjunction
    vith   the issu~ace    of A per6onr.l    bond under       eectioa     17.03.
    Fia~lly,  we believe    it jr Cl-r    that   A osgistrrte    msy not set A
    “dif    fereatinl  boil   Amount” d’cpendiag    upon whether       A CA6h or  surety
    bond     i6 used.    The r6AsOdag      of ruch   cA6e6   AS Denton sad Rodriguez
    iadicrter     th6t. if A Court ftiH:S boil     in tbe 6IMJUat Of $23,000.     it MY
    not,    under the term6 of nrtic:ic! 17.02. require        thnt -at      if the boil
    Is 6Ati6fied      by eurety   bond. hut Accept    A leS6Ar    amount if the bail    16
    p.   1666
    Roaornble     H.    Tot1Snatie6tcb4~mi            -   PAge      3    (JH-363
    6Ati6fied     by CA6h.         We emphcdse,                   however,      thAt    nrtlcles   17.01    And
    17.15     confer    upon       A        court     brood         discretion,        60 hllg     AS  it    16
    rlaeoosbly     exercised.          in    6ett:tag     boll.
    A smglstrste       hns brood     discretion    in rettlag
    the Amount nad coaditioa6         of boil    which on Accused
    mu6t sntlsfy        to dbftnia hi6 release.       Be may not,
    however,     require     1~11ACCU6ed t0 pO6t bAi1       iD cnsh
    only I   nor    ray   be   set  A  differeotirl     boil   bond
    amount    depending       upoa whether     A cash or surety
    boad    i6   glvea.
    J f%
    Very   truly   you
    &
    J In       tlATTOX
    Attorney     General   of Texas
    TOM GREW
    Pirst Assistant         Attorney         Gawral
    DAVID R.     RIGRAFDS
    Executive     Assistant       Attorney           Gencrsl
    ROBERT GRAY
    Specinl Assistnat          Attorney            G~eaernl
    RICK GILPIH
    ChAirmAn.  Opinion         Committee
    Prepared    by     Rick Gilpla
    ASSiStAnt        Attorney  kD6rAl
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COKKITTBE
    Rick Gilpla.       Chairman
    Colin    Cnrl
    Susan GArri6oa
    Toay Guillory
    Jim noellinger
    Jenalfcr      Riggs
    SArAh Woelk
    p.    1667
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-363

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1985

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017