Makeig v. State

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

This case concerns the amount of remit-titur allowed a surety on the amount of bond after a forfeiture has been declared and the proper application of Article 22.-16(d) and (e), V.A.C.C.P. 1 Appellant, Undine Makeig d/b/a E-Z Bail Bonds, alleges in a single point of error that the 7th Court of Appeals has misconstrued Article 22.-16(d) and (e) in remitting less than half the bond amount.

I

We have reviewed the court of appeals’ decision Makeig v. State, 802 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1990) and find the reasoning is sound. We therefore…