Case ID: sw_296/html/0886-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte JONES.
    (No. 11060.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 24, 1927.
    1. Bail <&wkey;>5l — Amount of bail is not determined alone by defendant’s ability to make bail (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 281, subds. 3, 4).
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 281, subds. 3, 4, ability of accused to make bail, or lack thereof, does not alone control in determining amount of bail.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 115(I) — Judgment denying reduction of bail held not reviewable', in absence of evidence as to nature of gffense.
    Judgment denying motion to reduce bail held not reviewable, where order fixing bail recited that parties had agreed on amount, “the court being satisfied,” and where no evidence as to nature of offense was before appellate court.
    Appeal from District Court, Orange County ; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Willie Jones was indicted for murder, and from a judgment denying reduction in bail he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. G. Yaughn and Tom O. Stephenson, both, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Hollis M. Kinard, Co. Atty, of Orange, and Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for appellee.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of one Summerville. He made application for writ of habeas corpus to the district judge .of Orange county (court being in session) for the purpose of securing bail. The writ issued, and at the hearing the judge made the following entry on his docket:

“The defendant, Willie Jones, being produced in open court by the sheriff in response to the writ, and the state, by her county attorney, agreeing' that the offense with which the defendant is charged is a bailable one, and having agreed with defendant upon bail in the sum of $12,500, and the court being satisfied, the defendant is entitled to bail in the sum of $12,-500.”

The evidence heard at that time, if any, upon the facts of the homicide, is not in the record. Some 30 days later, while court was still in session, appellant filed a motion asking for reduction of bail, averring that he had endeavored to make the bond, but had been unable to do so, and further averring that he had no friends or relatives able to become sureties, and no money or property to secure the bond, and that the amount of bail theretofore fixed was unreasonable, and in effect was a denial of bail. The only evidence produced by appellant in support of his motion was upon the sole issue of his ability to make bond. His attorney testified that he had unsuccessfully attempted to secure signers, but thought he could probably make a bond in the sum of $2,000. The father of appellant testified that he had made no effort to make hail, for the reason that he had no friends or relatives able to make it. Appellant testified that he had been in jail, and was relying on his attorney to secure bail for him, and. that he had no money or property. Upon this evidence the court denied appellant’s motion; hence this appeal.

The state having admitted that the case was bailable, we must look to the statute which governs in fixing the amount. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered, and the ability of accused to make bail is to be regarded. Subdivisions 3 and 4, art. 281, C. C. P. Appellant, having agreed to bail in the sum of $12,500, must necessarily have known that under the statute referred to-the question of reduction of the amount must turn upon the consideration of the facts incident to the killing, as well as the ability to make bond. His ability or lack thereof cannot alone control. In view of the court’s-statement, in. the order originally entered, that the amount of bail agreed upon was satisfactory to him, it occurs to us that we must presume the court was in possession of such facts as caused him to conclude the bail required was proper. Not having before us any evidence incident to the offense and its commission, we are in no position to review the action of the court in declining to reduce the bail.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. 
      «gsjB'or other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes