Exoneration grounds under Art. 22.13 — the five complete defenses

Overview of the five causes

Article 22.13 sets out a closed list. There are five complete causes, and they are listed exhaustively in the statute’s subsections. When any one of them is established to the trial court’s satisfaction, the court has no discretion — exoneration is required.¹

That mandatory posture distinguishes 22.13 from Article 22.16 remittitur, which is discretionary. A surety able to bring its case within 22.13 should always do so; the result is more complete, more certain, and not subject to the trial court’s case-by-case judgment.

Read the statute at statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.22.htm.

Cause 1 — the bond was not a valid undertaking

The first complete cause covers any defect rendering the bond “not a valid and binding undertaking in law.” The category is broad. Recurring scenarios:

• A bond signed by a bondsman whose license had been suspended on the signing date.
• A bond signed by an individual not on the surety company’s power-of-attorney list.
• A bond that lists a cause number that does not exist or that has been administratively closed.
• A bond missing the principal’s signature or with a signature that the principal disputes.
• A bond that exceeds the bondsman’s county bail bond board cap.

The procedural posture is documentary. The surety files a motion to exonerate, attaches a certified copy of the bond, attaches the county bond board’s license-status record for the signing date, and supports any factual irregularity with a sworn affidavit. The State’s response is usually limited to disputing the factual basis; if the record establishes the defect, exoneration is required.

Cause 2 — death of the principal

Death of the principal before the forfeiture is the cleanest cause. A certified death certificate dated before the judgment nisi is generally dispositive.

The timing requirement

Death must precede the forfeiture (the judgment nisi). A principal who dies after the nisi but before the final judgment is dealt with under Article 22.14, not 22.13.

Out-of-state death

A foreign death certificate must be properly authenticated. Texas courts generally accept a death certificate certified under the laws of the issuing jurisdiction; if there is doubt, the certificate can be authenticated through the U.S. Department of State for foreign deaths.

Suspicious circumstances

If the State challenges the death — alleging identity confusion, for example — the surety may need additional records: a fingerprint match, dental record, or a sworn statement from a treating physician or family member.

Cause 3 — illness or insanity preventing appearance

The third complete cause is illness or insanity that prevented the principal’s appearance. The burden is on the surety to show the condition existed at the time of the forfeiture and was disabling.

For physical illness, the documentary record routinely includes:

• ER admission records from the day of the missed appearance.
• EMS run sheets showing transport that day.
• A treating physician’s affidavit attesting that the condition prevented the principal from appearing.
• Hospital discharge summaries, if the principal was admitted.

For insanity, the showing is more demanding. A Texas Mental Health Code emergency commitment, a certified record of inpatient psychiatric treatment, or a forensic evaluator’s report tied to the day of the missed appearance is the floor. A general history of mental illness is not enough; the condition must have been disabling on that date.

Cause 4 — release on the same case in another jurisdiction

The fourth cause covers a principal who has been released on the same case in another county or state. The recurring fact pattern is a principal picked up on a Texas warrant in another jurisdiction, where local authorities post a new bond and proceed under their own rules — making the Texas bond effectively superseded.

The required record is a certified order or release log from the sister jurisdiction, plus identification matching the principal to that case. A Texas court will look for:

1. A certified release order or jail log from the other jurisdiction.
2. The new bond paperwork in the other jurisdiction, certified.
3. A fingerprint match or other identification confirming that the same person posted both bonds.
4. The state-line transfer paperwork, if any.

Cause 5 — failure to present indictment timely

The fifth complete cause is a charging-side defense. The statute requires the State to present an indictment or information at the “first term” after the bond is given. A failure to do so exonerates the surety.

The required record is documentary: a certified copy of the bond, a certified copy of the indictment (or absence of one), and a certified copy of the docket showing when the first term convened. The mechanics of “term” have meaning that varies by district court — some districts adopt continuous terms, others use traditional term-by-term scheduling.

This is one of the less-used causes in modern practice because most DFW districts have continuous terms that effectively eliminate the term-by-term presentation requirement. But it remains available, particularly in rural Texas counties.

Common pitfalls in 22.13 practice

Three recurring problems handle most failed 22.13 motions:

1. Trying to fit a discretionary remedy into a complete cause. If the principal is alive, was not hospitalized, and the bond is procedurally clean, 22.13 is not the right vehicle. The surety needs Article 22.16 remittitur, with its more flexible (but discretionary) standard.
2. Documentary thinness. Affidavits and reconstructions are weaker than contemporaneous records. The earlier the documentary build begins, the stronger the motion.
3. Procedural timing. 22.13 must be invoked before final judgment. Once final judgment is entered, the surety is generally limited to 22.16 remittitur.

Civil procedure overlay in bond-forfeiture proceedings

Bond-forfeiture proceedings have hybrid criminal/civil character. The criminal court has jurisdiction, but once forfeiture is declared and the judgment nisi is filed, the proceedings operate under civil rules in many respects. The civil overlay matters for 22.13 motions in several ways.

Burden of proof

The State’s prima facie case is established by the bond and the judgment nisi. The burden of production then shifts to the surety to establish a 22.13 cause.

Civil rules of evidence

Texas Rule of Evidence applicability is generally the same as in civil proceedings. Certified records under Rule 902 are admissible without authentication; public records under Rule 803(8) are admissible as exceptions to hearsay; and the business-records exception under Rule 803(6) covers many medical and agency records.

Pleading standards

The surety’s motion to exonerate is typically treated as a special appearance or motion. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a (case dismissal for want of prosecution) and 166 (pretrial conference) procedures sometimes apply in extended cases.

Discovery

The civil discovery rules apply in some courts; in others, the criminal court refers to civil procedure selectively. Sureties can sometimes obtain depositions of arresting officers, jail records, and out-of-county documents through civil discovery vehicles where the criminal court permits.

Appellate review

An appeal from a bond-forfeiture final judgment is civil in nature, with the briefing format and standards reflecting that posture.

Recent developments in bond-forfeiture practice

Texas bond-forfeiture practice has evolved in recent years. Specific developments worth tracking:

1. County bail-bond board regulation. Several DFW counties have tightened bail-bond board oversight, including license-history record-keeping and audit requirements. The increased records reach makes 22.13 cause-1 defenses (invalid bond) more readily provable.
2. Electronic monitoring as a condition of bond. Some Texas counties have increased the use of GPS and SCRAM monitoring as bond conditions. The compliance record from monitoring providers can be relevant in remittitur and exoneration proceedings.
3. Pretrial release expansion. The pandemic-era expansion of pretrial release through personal bonds has changed the bondsman/surety landscape in some counties. The full effect on 22.13 practice continues to develop.
4. Out-of-state custody coordination. Interstate compact procedures have evolved with NCIC integration; identifying a principal’s custody status in another state is faster than it used to be, which supports cause-4 documentation.
5. Judicial efficiency initiatives. Several DFW district courts now use case-management orders to handle bond forfeitures more efficiently. The case-management approach often produces earlier final-judgment dates, which compresses the 22.13 window.

Building the evidentiary foundation

For each of the five 22.13 causes, the evidentiary foundation has specific elements that the trial court will look for.

For cause 1 (invalid bond)

The defect’s factual basis — a license suspended on a specific date, a power of attorney missing a specific signature, a cause number that does not exist in the court’s records — must be in the record by certified document. An attorney’s affidavit summarizing the defect is not sufficient.

For cause 2 (death)

A certified death certificate is generally enough. If the State challenges identity (suggesting the named decedent is not the principal), additional identification — fingerprint match, dental record, or sworn statement from a family member — may be needed.

For cause 3 (illness/insanity)

Hospital admission records dated the day of the missed appearance are the strongest single document. EMS run sheets are nearly as strong. A physician’s affidavit that the condition prevented the appearance is essential. For insanity, a contemporaneous mental-health commitment or treatment record is the floor.

For cause 4 (out-of-county custody)

A certified release order, jail log, or booking record from the sister jurisdiction must be in the record. The records must clearly identify the principal as the same person.

For cause 5 (failure to present)

A certified court docket showing the dates of the bond, the convening of the first term, and the lack of an indictment within that term. The docket is the only document that can establish this cause.

What to do when you have a 22.13 cause

The first task is documentary inventory. What do you have, certified, today? If the answer is “a death certificate dated before the nisi,” the motion can be filed within a day or two. If the answer is “a hospital admission that I think happened around that date,” the documentary build comes first.

The second task is to verify there is no final judgment yet. The County Attorney’s civil division moves at varying speeds. A quick pull of the docket tells you how much runway is left.

The third task is to draft a motion that is tight to the specific subsection. A 22.13 motion that invokes “exoneration generally” without identifying the specific subsection invites a State response that the motion is procedurally inadequate. The motion should track the statute’s subsection language word for word and attach the supporting documentation in numbered exhibits.