Martin Rene Lugo Jr. v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00296-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MARTIN RENE LUGO JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT
OF JACKSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

A jury convicted appellant Martin Rene Lugo, Jr. of bail jumping and failure to

appear, a third-degree felony with punishment enhanced by multiple prior felony

convictions, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.1 See TEX. PENAL CODE

1 Lugo pleaded true to four felony convictions for punishment enhancement purposes. See TEX.
ANN. § 38.10. By his sole issue, Lugo argues the “evidence fails to prove [he] knowingly

or intentionally failed to appear in [c]ourt in accordance with the terms of his bond.” We

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

At trial, Ashley Brown testified that she is a jailer with Jackson County. According

to Brown, when an inmate bonds out of jail, she instructs him to write his physical address

on the bond form, so that he will be contacted with a future court setting. Specifically, she

informs the inmate that the address provided must be a physical address and not a post

office box. She stated that on July 19, 2023, she received a surety bond for Lugo’s release

in the amount of $3,000. She informed Lugo of the address requirements, witnessed him

sign his bond release form, and observed him handwrite his physical mailing address and

phone number.

Assistant District Clerk Kelley Drastata testified that on October 17, 2023, she

mailed Lugo and his bonding company notice that Lugo needed to appear in the “24th

District Court on Tuesday, October 24, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.” Drastata stated that she sent

notice by United States Postal Service to the physical address Lugo provided on his bond

form. Similarly, District Clerk Sharon Mathis testified that this notice was mailed to Lugo

seven days before the docket setting at the same physical address. According to Mathis,

Lugo had an obligation to update the address if it changed. Mathis stated that the notice

did not return to the clerk’s office as undeliverable.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d).

2
Francis Martinez testified that she is employed by the bonding company that

provided for Lugo’s bond. She stated that before October 24, 2023, she called Lugo’s

mother to inform her of the trial setting, and she also texted Lugo’s mother a picture of

the trial court setting.

Bailiff Chancey Greene testified that he was working as a bailiff for the 24th District

Court in Jackson County on October 24, 2023, and that Lugo did not appear or answer

when Greene called his name. Greene’s affidavit to the same effect was admitted into

evidence.

Officer Stephen Lang testified that he arrested Lugo for failure to appear and bail

jumping. He stated that he is familiar with Lugo, and based on his experience and history

with Lugo and Lugo’s family, he knows Lugo “to live with his mom.” According to Lang,

Lugo was only a couple of blocks away from his physical address at the time of his arrest.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Lugo argues that the State failed to prove he intentionally or knowingly failed to

appear in accordance with the terms of his release because he did not have actual notice

of the trial court’s setting.

A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law

In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, a

reviewing court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and

determines whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn

therefrom, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App.

2017). “The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given

3
to their testimonies, and the reviewing court must not usurp this role by substituting its

own judgment for that of the jury.” Id. (citing Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192

(Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). The duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the

evidence presented supports the fact finder’s verdict and that the State has presented a

legally sufficient case of the offense charged. Id. When a reviewing court is faced with a

record supporting contradicting conclusions, the court must presume the fact finder

resolved any such conflicts in favor of the verdict, even when not explicitly stated in the

record. Id. “Under this standard, evidence may be legally insufficient when the record

contains no evidence of an essential element, merely a modicum of evidence of one

element, or if it conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Britain v. State,

412 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)).

Sufficiency of the evidence is measured against “the elements of the offense as

defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” See Malik v. State, 953

S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A person commits the offense of bail jumping

and failure to appear if the person: (1) has been “lawfully released from custody,” (2) “on

condition that [t]he [person] subsequently appear,” (3) and then “intentionally or

knowingly fails to appear,” (4) “in accordance with the terms of [the person’s] release.”

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10. “A person acts intentionally . . . with respect to the nature

of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to

engage in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(a). “A person acts knowingly . . .

with respect to the nature of his conduct . . . when he is aware of the nature of his conduct”

and “[a] person acts knowingly . . . with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware

that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(b).

4
B. Discussion

Here, the evidence established that Lugo was released from jail on July 19, 2023,

on a $3,000 bail bond pending criminal charges. It is undispusted that the physical

residential address listed in Lugo’s surety bond is Lugo’s mother’s address, and Lugo

does not dispute his address. Lugo also does not dispute that he failed to appear at the

24th District Court on October 24, 2023. Instead, he challenges the State’s notice to him.

Lugo provided Brown with his physical address, and he signed the bond form,

which contained that address. The evidence showed that the district clerk mailed Lugo

notice of the trial court setting to the physical address that he provided, and the notice did

not come back as undeliverable. See generally Walker v. State, 291 S.W.3d 114 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (holding evidence sufficiently supported the conviction

for bail jumping where two different parties mailed notices to the address where defendant

lived, none of the notices came back as undeliverable, and defendant’s bail bondsman

spoke with defendant’s aunt who stated that defendant received actual notice of

arraignment docket setting); see also Jenkins v. State, No. 07-18-00186-CR, 2020 WL

594487, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (upholding a conviction for bail jumping where there was testimony showing

that the trial court mailed a notice to appellant at the address he provided in his bond

notifying him of the date and time to appear for his arraignment and the date and time to

appear for a pretrial hearing); Hafeez-Bey v. State, No. 09-10-00013-CR, 2010 WL

3260050, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 18, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (holding the evidence legally sufficient when “the surety mailed

an arraignment notice and confirmed its receipt with a family member”). Furthermore,

5
Martinez called Lugo’s mother and sent her a picture of the trial court setting. Lastly, Lugo

was found close to his residence, which is the address he provided on the bond form.

Based on this record, a rational jury could have found that Lugo intentionally and

knowingly failed to appear in accordance with the terms of his release. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 38.10. We overrule his sole issue.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
21st day of August, 2025.

6