### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00641-CR
Ex par te Gabriel L eonides

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 3011662, HONORABLE FRANK W. BRYAN JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

Gabriel Le oni de s i s c onf

i ne d w hi l e a wai ti ng tri al on a n i nd i ctm en t f or i ntox i ca ti on man slaugh

ter. A m unici pal court judge

set appell

ant’s b ai l a

t $250,000. Appel

l an t peti tion ed f or a wr it of h ab ea s c orp us , c om

pl ai n i n g th at the am oun t of bail was exc essive a nd as king t hat it be reduced. The writ i ssued an d, after a heari

ng, the trial

court lowered

ba i l to $175,000 . We

af f i rm the tri al court’s order. DISCUSSI ON The prim ary purpose of b ai l i

s to secure the pr es enc e o f the def endan t. Ex parte Vasquez , 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). T he se t t ing o f bail is co mmi t t ed t o t he discretion of t he t rial co ur t or magist ra t e, but t he exe rc ise o f this d iscre t ion is go ver ned by t he
con sti tution and statutes. See Te x. C od e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann. ar t . 17
. 15 ( We st Su pp . 20 02 )
. Ba il sho uld be sufficient ly hi

gh t o g ive rea so nable ass ur ance t hat t he und er t aking w ill be co mplied wit h, bu t t he power to re qui

re b ai l i s n ot to be used as

an i ns trumen t of oppre ssi

on. Id. ar t . 1 7. 15( 1) , ( 2) . T he2

na ture of th e o ffense and t he circ umst ance s und er which it w as c ommitt ed a re fact or s t o be consi dered

in se t t ing b ail, as is t he fu t ur e s afe t y of t he com mun ity and the v

ictim of the al le ged off ense. Id . art. 17.15 (3), (5). The de fen da nt ’s ab ilit y t o mak e b ail a lso mus t be co nsid er ed , bu t is not of i tself control l i ng. Id. art. 17.15 (4); Ex parte Gentry , 615 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. Crim . App. 1981)
. In determi

ni ng t he likeliho od o f the defen dant co mpl

yi ng with the bai

l condi tions,
con si de rati on al so m ay be gi ven to suc h f actors as the def

endan t’s ties to the

com m un i ty , coop era

ti on wi th t he po lice, a nd r eco rd of a ppe ar ance s in the pas t. See Ex parte Williams , 619 S.W.2d 180, 183 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 81) ; Gentry , 61 5 S. W.2d at 231 ; Ex parte Parish , 598 S. W.2 d 87 2, 873 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1980 ); Ex parte Keller , 595 S.W .2d 531 , 533 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1980 ). The bur den of p roof i s on a

ppel l an t to prove tha

t the b ail set i s ex ces si ve . Exparte Rubac , 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim . App. 1981). We revi ewt he trial court ’s ruli

ng for an abuse of d i scre tion
. Id . at 850. Appellant’s spouse, sis

ter-in-law, and f

rien d, Miguel Segundo-Garcia, testif

ie d at t he hear ing on app ell ant’s behalf. Ap pellant ’s sp ou se t est ifi ed t hat she and appel

la nt have been

ma rried f orsev en years ; th ey

ha ve three chi l dren , al

l of w hom were born in A ust in; and that appellant’s father and t wo br o t he r s ha ve r es ide d in Au st in for t he pas t seve n years . S he fur t her t est ifi ed t hat she e ar ns seven dollars per hour

and t hat she a nd

app ellant o wn no re al pr op er t y and have no a sset s. T hey have ag re ed to pa y $1 50 per w eek to a

l aw yer to re pr es en t appe l l an t. Appellant’s sis t er - in- law , Ma r ia Ortiz, testif

ie d that appell

ant has l iv ed i n A us ti n f or about tenye ars and that his f ather has l iv ed i n A ustin for fi fteen ye ars. Appel

la nt has b een em

ploy ed by the sa me e m pl oyer f orseven or e ight years and appe ll ant’s spouse has b ecome the sol e provider3

f ort he family

sin ce appellant’s arrest . Bot h appell ant’s spouse and Ms. Or tiz t estified that a ppellant’s family was unable t o r aise mo ney for a bo nd. Ms. Or t iz also t est ifi ed t hat on t he da

y of th e i n ci den t, appella nt’s car was b ei

ng dri ven , not by appel

la nt, but by another in

div idua l, Ef rain Ay al a. Mi guel Segundo -Gar cia test if

ied to the event s occ urr ing bef or e appellant’s ar

re st. He t es t if i ed t hat , immediat ely befor e t he ac cident t hat led t o a ppe llant’s a rr est , Ayala and app ellant swi tched se ats in the car. But Segundo-Garcia did not remem ber speaki ng wi th police or telli

ng them th at a pp el l an t wa s d ri v i n g a t th e ti me of th e acc i den

t. At t he concl

usi on of the hea

rin g, the trial court lowered

bail to $17 5, 000 , e xplaining t he co nsider at ions u nder lyi ng his dec ision: ( 1) t he de fendant ’s ability t o mak e bail is low a nd he does not have signifi

cant assets; (2) the off

ense i s a serious offen

se, resul ting i n the death of an ot her per so n; ( 3) t he de fe nd an t ha d p r ev io us ly b een conv ic ted of DWI in 1998 and appeared for tho se pro ceedings; (4) unl ike

t he pri or DWI , thi

s c as e i s a se con d-degree f el ony wi th a de adl y we ap on allegat ion; and ( 5) th e d efe nd an t is no t a le ga l re sid en t o f t he Un it ed St at es an d h as family t ies in Me xi co. Wi th respect to the off

ense f or which appel la nt was i ndicted, t here was testi

mony that app ellant was dr iving

wi th out a driver’s l icense and, perhaps, without insurance. The t rial cour t also fou nd that appell

ant had b een ch

arged with f

am il y v iolence at a time when he was drunk. There was no eviden ce that appell

ant failed to appear for ot her proce edin gs. Appe llantdo es no t challenge t he consi derations taken i nto account by the tria

l cou rt, buturges that the amount of ba il is undul y e xcess iv e becaus e t he t r ial court fai le d to consi der appellant’s ability to make bo nd and t he “ex ige nt circum stances” regardi

ng the off ense, gi vi ng undue weight to th e c om

m un i ty sa f ety com ponen t. The Sta

te c onte nd s th at a ppe l l an t i s a rep ea t al coh ol4

off ender wit h a se r io us alc o ho l pr o ble m wh o is a da ng er t o t he co mmun it y. Altho ugh app ellant produced t est imony conc er ning his inabil ity t o mak e bail, he ad duc ed onl y con cl us ory proof re gar ding his em pl oym en t and f am i l y tie s. Ba l an ci n g th e p au ci ty of pr oof re ga rd i n g ti es wi th th e c om m un i ty agains t the nature and seri

ousness of

the offens e al ong with the c omm uni ty saf ety concerns, we concl ude that t he trial court adeq uately wei ghed the relevant considerations. Applyingthe standard of revi ewan

d th e e sta b l i sh ed cri ter i a to these f

acts, whi le

the bai l i s hi gh, we can

not say that the trial court abused i

ts discreti on in

setting the b ond at $175,000.

CONCLU SION We overru l e app el l an t’s poi nt of error an d af f i rm the tri al court’s order.

Jan P. Patterson, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: February

7, 2002 Do No t Publis

h