1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00396-CR

____________________

EX PARTE NICHOLAS BALDWIN 

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. WR01369

__________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Nicholas Baldwin challenges the trial court’s order granting, in 

part, his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction. In a single 

appellate issue, Baldwin contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing 

to sufficiently reduce the amount of his bonds in accordance with article 17.151 of 

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, 

§ 1(1) (West 2015). We reverse the trial court’s order. 

Background

On June 13, 2018, Baldwin was arrested and charged with two counts of 

possession of a controlled substance. Baldwin’s bonds had been set at $16,000 each,
2

and the trial court had found that Baldwin was indigent and appointed counsel for 

him. On September 11, 2018, Baldwin filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, 

alleging that his confinement violated article 17.151 because ninety days had elapsed 

since his arrest without indictment and his two bonds were excessive and beyond his 

and his family’s financial means. See id. According to Baldwin, under article 

17.151, he was entitled to either be released on a personal recognizance bond or to 

a reduction of his bonds to a reasonable amount he could make to obtain his release.

On October 2, 2018, the trial court conducted a hearing on Baldwin’s 

application for writ of habeas corpus, during which the State confirmed that Baldwin 

had been in jail on the current charges for more than ninety days. The State never 

claimed that Baldwin had been indicted or that it had been ready for trial within 

ninety days of Baldwin’s arrest. Rather, the State informed the trial court that the 

issue was whether to release Baldwin on a personal recognizance bond or set a 

reasonable surety bond. Baldwin’s counsel maintained that because Baldwin had no 

finances, a personal recognizance bond was all that Baldwin could make. The record 

shows that a representative from the personal recognizance bond department advised 

the trial court that under standard procedures Baldwin would not qualify for a 

personal recognizance bond because of his criminal history. 
3

The record further shows that Baldwin presented testimony concerning the 

amount of bail that he could make. Baldwin testified that he has not earned any 

money since being arrested on June 13. Baldwin testified that his affidavit of 

indigency, dated June 19, 2018, indicated that he was last employed in 2014. 

However, Baldwin explained that prior to his arrest, he had worked one day at the 

auction barn and earned less than one hundred dollars. Baldwin further explained 

that he earns income performing tattoo work. Baldwin testified that he stays with 

his grandfather rent free and that his mother provides him with some support.

Baldwin testified that he did not have a bank account or any investment 

accounts, and he did not own a car or any property that could be used to cover a 

bond. Baldwin explained that he could not afford his two $16,000 bonds, and he 

asked the trial court to either issue him a personal recognizance bond or reduce his 

bail to an amount that he could afford. According to Baldwin, his friend was willing 

to cover his bail. 

Jordan Roberts testified that she has been friends with Baldwin for two years, 

they have a child together, and she is willing to help Baldwin with his bond. Roberts 

testified that she works as a custodian for a school district, earns $1500 per month, 

and has eight hundred dollars in the bank. Roberts explained that she does not own 

any property or a car, and that she has one dependent. Roberts also explained that 
4

she has eight hundred dollars left after paying her monthly expenses, and that she 

has previously tried to post bail for Baldwin, but she could not afford the $3500 that 

was required. According to Roberts, she can afford to pay $1750. 

After presenting Roberts’ testimony, Baldwin’s counsel requested that the 

trial court reduce the amount of the bonds to eight hundred dollars each. The State 

asked the trial court to consider the fact that Baldwin’s affidavit of indigency was 

based on erroneous information. The trial court granted partial relief by reducing 

Baldwin’s bonds to $15,000 each. 

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

We review a trial court’s decision made during a habeas proceeding regarding 

the reduction of bail for an abuse of discretion. See Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425, 

428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d 62, 64 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2016, no pet.). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies ‘an

erroneous legal standard, or when no reasonable view of the record could support 

the trial court’s conclusion under the correct law and facts viewed in the light most 

favorable to its legal conclusion.’” Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 64 (quoting 

DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, 497-98 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled on 

other grounds by Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
5

Article 17.151, section 1(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides 

as follows: 

A defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation 

against him must be released either on personal bond or by reducing 

the amount of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the 

criminal action for which he is being detained within: (1) 90 days from 

the commencement of his detention if he is accused of a felony[.] 

(emphasis added).

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, § 1(1). Article 17.151 preserves the 

presumption of innocence by ensuring that an accused, who is untried and unreleased

on bond, will not suffer the incidental punitive effect of incarceration during any 

further delay attendant to prosecutorial exigency. Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 65 

(citing Ex parte Jones, 803 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). The State 

bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that it was ready for trial within 

the ninety-day time period. Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 65 (quoting Ex parte 

Ragston, 422 S.W.2d. 904, 906-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)).

The State cannot announce that it is ready for trial when there is no indictment. Ex 

parte Castellano, 321 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). 

When the State is not ready for trial ninety days after the accused has been arrested 

and the accused has remained incarcerated throughout that period, article 17.151 

requires that the trial court either release the accused on a personal bond or reduce 
6

bail to an amount the accused can make. Ex parte Carson, 215 S.W.3d 921, 924 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). 

The evidence shows that although Baldwin could not post the bond originally 

set by the trial court, Roberts could afford to pay $1750 on Baldwin’s behalf. The 

State presented no contrary evidence showing that Baldwin could make two bonds 

set at $15,000 each. See id. Based on this record, we conclude that Baldwin met his 

burden of showing that he was unable to post the two $15,000 bonds that the trial 

court set. See Ex parte McNeil, 772 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 1989, no pet.). Viewing the entire record in favor of the trial court’s ruling, 

we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce the bonds 

to an amount that Baldwin could make to secure his release. See Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, § 1(1); Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 70; Ex parte Carson, 

215 S.W.3d at 924.

We sustain Baldwin’s sole issue. We reverse the trial court’s order setting 

Baldwin’s bonds at $15,000 each and remand the case to the trial court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. Mandate in this case shall issue 

immediately. See Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 70 (citing Tex. R. App. P. 2). 
7

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on December 5, 2018

Opinion Delivered December 21, 2108

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

Do Not Publish