Background
Ryan Keith Markowski was convicted by a jury of violating a bond condition, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to ten days’ confinement. The conviction stemmed from an incident where Markowski, who was out on bond for a family violence offense, allegedly violated a condition prohibiting him from being within 200 yards of the protected individual’s (Selena Bermudez) residence. On February 17, 2023, police officers witnessed Markowski within 200 yards of Bermudez’s residence, leading to his arrest.
The bond conditions, established on September 16, 2021, explicitly stated they were related to Bermudez’s safety and did not have an expiration date specified. Markowski appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically arguing that the charging instrument and evidence did not properly allege the statutory authority for a “protective order” and that the order’s expiration was not established.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas 13th Court of Appeals affirmed Markowski’s conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient. The Court rejected Markowski’s argument that the State failed to allege the statutory authority for a “protective order,” clarifying that the conviction was for violating a *bond condition* set in a family violence case, not a protective order. The Court emphasized that Texas Penal Code § 25.07 permits convictions based on either the violation of certain bond conditions or protective orders, and Markowski’s case fell under the bond condition provision.
The Court found that the evidence presented at trial—including the bond order itself, testimony from two police officers who witnessed Markowski within 200 yards of Bermudez’s residence, and body-worn camera footage—was sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Markowski intentionally and knowingly violated the active bond condition. The bond conditions were found to be still active at the time of the violation, as they remained in effect until the underlying case was disposed of, which had not occurred.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction under Texas Penal Code § 25.07 can be based on the violation of a bond condition in a family violence case, not solely a protective order.
- Arguments challenging the statutory authority for a “protective order” are irrelevant when the charge is for violating a bond condition.
- Bond conditions related to victim safety can remain in effect until the underlying case is resolved, even if no explicit expiration date is stated in the initial order.
- Eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence (bond order), and body-worn camera footage can provide sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for violating a bond condition.
Why It Matters
This case clarifies an important distinction under Texas Penal Code § 25.07, reinforcing that violating a bond condition in a family violence case is a distinct offense from violating a protective order. This distinction is crucial for both prosecutors in drafting charges and defense attorneys in challenging them, as it dictates the specific elements the State must prove and the types of arguments that are relevant.
For individuals facing family violence charges, it underscores the serious and ongoing nature of bond conditions related to victim safety. Even without a separate protective order or an explicit expiration date, these conditions remain enforceable as long as the underlying case is active, providing continuous protection for victims and holding defendants accountable for non-compliance.