Can a JP require a defendant to post a bond (the JP calls it an appearance bond) after the defandant has pled not guilty to a traffic ticket or MIP?

Even if the defendant has signed a promise to appear, it appears the JP may "require the defendant to give bail" or "be held in custody". Art. 45.016 C.C.P. How this meshes with the procedures set out in Chapter 17 and particularly 17.05 and 17.25 is a little less than clear.

If the defendant has signed a promise to appear (the ticket) and has responed by the deadline to enter his plea, it may be improper to require a bond. I believe the Judicial Conduct Commisssion has issued some admonitions to magistrates who have required a bond simply because a defendant has pleaded "not guilty" and requested a trial.

I would agree that requiring a bond in a situation where the person wasn't arrested, signed the ticket, and made an appearance within the time required is questionable since the defendant is not going to be held in custody if they don't give bail.

Chapter 45 CCP controls JP and Muni Courts, it superceeds the general provisions of Chapter 17, but if such a bond is a mechanism for forcing involuntary pleas or punishing a defendant exercising a right to trial it violates due process rights and may subject the judge to discipline from the Judicial Conduct Commission. Caution is the best policy and the bond should only be required if the court finds it is necessary to guarentee reappearance and not as an unlawful deterrant.

Clay, could you clarify the extent to which you believe 45.016 controls over the provisions of Chapter 17. I read art. 17.38 differently. My point was: how does the judge have the defendant held in custody if he "fails to give bail", since he has already been released on a promise to appear and has not failed to appear. If a warrant or order for re-arrest were issued at that point would the sheriff be justified in refusing to act thereon? Is it really unconstitutional to require bail just because the legislature provided an alternate mechanism for initial release? In my experience JPs have frequently requested a bond if someone enters a not guilty plea, treating the promise to appear as applying to the initial (10 day) appearance only.

The Code Construction Act (cited above) says if two sections are in conflict the specific or local provision controls over the general. As a general rule (Perhaps not applicable here) Chapter 45 provisions control over the rest of the CCP in Muni and JP court.

Also remember the citation only releases, as you said, for ten days. But Chapter 45 is permissive not mandetory. The court cannot take a bond "as a tool of oppression". The bond can be used to guarentee appearance, but the JP should not abuse the self proclaimed innocent due to their failure to, as one JP I was in front of said, "have their mind right". The statutory ability to set a bond is availible, but should only be exercised for reappearance not forcing pleas. The Sherrif should not ignore the court's order, but writ relief or investigation of the JP abusing their discretion is needed.

In addition, the JP often has only a citation, hardly sufficient probable cause to order an arrest. Nothing in 45.018 removes the constitutional mandate the judge have probable cause to order arrest.

Well that wholly murks up the issue. Its often more difficult to follow the "simple" mandates in JP court than the "complex" ones in District Court.