CITY BAIL BONDS,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Annotate this Case

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-00773-CV
CITY BAIL BONDS,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES STEWART, THOMAS, AND WHITTINGTON
OPINION BY JUSTICE WHITTINGTON
JUNE 13, 1989
        City Bail Bonds seeks to set aside a bond forfeiture judgment. In two points of error, appellant asserts that: (1) the judgment was entered in violation of article 22.16, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; and (2) that the trial court was without jurisdiction because service of process was defective. We overrule both points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
        Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred in rendering final judgment before the time limits specified by article 22.16(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has recently declared article 22.16 unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Armadillo Bonding Co. v. State, No. 88-01369 (Tex. App.--Dallas, May 2, 1989) (not yet reported). Accordingly, appellant's first point is overruled.
        Next appellant asserts that the service of process was defective because neither the citation or the judgment nisi states who is the agent for service for City Bail Bonds. Appellant entered an answer in this cause. An answer constitutes an appearance of the defendant so as to dispense with the necessity for the issuance or service of citation upon him. TEX. R. CIV. P. 121. Therefore, any defect in service of process was waived. Bowen v. State, 413 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Point two is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
                                                          
                                                          JOHN WHITTINGTON
                                                          JUSTICE
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
888-00733.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[880773F]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.