In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00206-CR

EX PARTE CINQUE ROSS

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 43,104-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cinque Ross was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and was 

sentenced to eight years’ confinement. Ross’ previously perfected appeal of his underlying 

conviction is pending in this Court, but this appeal relates to Ross’ bail pending appeal, which 

was set at $100,000.00. The trial court denied Ross’ motion to reduce his bond on appeal. On 

appeal, Ross argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reduce the bond. We 

affirm the trial court’s ruling.

When an appeal is pending from certain felony convictions, the trial court may admit the 

defendant “to reasonable bail until his conviction becomes final.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 44.04(c) (West 2006). In reviewing bonds on appeal, we review the trial court’s decision 

using an abuse-of-discretion standard. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1990). We will reverse that decision only if it was made without reference to any guiding 

principles, in other words, if it was arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; Ex parte Jackson, 257 S.W.3d 

520, 521 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). We will not interfere with the trial court’s 

ruling as long as it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement, even if we would have reached 

a different result. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391 (op. on reh’g); Jackson, 257 S.W.3d at 521.

The amount of bail required is within the discretion of the court, judge, magistrate, or officer 

taking the bail, subject to the following rules:

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that 

the undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an 

instrument of oppression.
3

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was 

committed are to be considered.

4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken 

upon this point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the 

community shall be considered.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (West 2005). Ross has the burden of proof to show that 

the amount of bail set is excessive. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1981).

Securing the appellant’s apprehension if his conviction is affirmed is the primary 

objective of the appeal bond. Id. The primary factors we are to consider are the nature of the 

offense and the length of the sentence. Id. at 849. In addition, we are to consider the accused’s 

employment record, family and community ties, length of residency, prior criminal record, and 

any aggravating circumstances involved in the underlying offense. Id. at 849–50; Jackson, 257 

S.W.3d at 522.

In this case, Ross argues that the trial court abused its discretion because he lacks the 

financial resources to make a $100,000.00 bond and that he is not a flight risk since he has close 

family and community ties and has a history of employment. The State responds that Ross has 

not established that he and his family do not have the resources to be able to pay the bond 

premium and that the trial court considered all of the factors required by Article 17.15 and Rubac

in setting the bond. 

Ross was the only witness at the bond reduction hearing. He testified that he has lived in 

Longview most of his adult life and that his parents, son, brother, sister, and aunt also live in the 
4

area. He made his pretrial bond of $30,000.00, complied with its conditions, and was present at 

every court appointment. Before being incarcerated, he had worked an oilfield job and thought 

he would be able to resume the job if he were released on bond. He claimed he was indigent and 

would have to depend on his family to raise the bond premium. He believed they would be able 

to raise $2,500.00 for a bond premium. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had 

previously been convicted of two felonies, assault on a public servant and engaging in criminal 

activity, and at least one misdemeanor. 

Primarily, we consider that Ross was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a 

felon, a third degree felony,1 and sentenced to eight years’ confinement. The indictment on 

which he was convicted alleges he was previously convicted of assault on a public servant 

August 13, 2009, just over four years from the date of his arrest in this case. At the bond 

reduction hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of all prior proceedings in the case, which 

would have included the sentencing hearing. It therefore took into account all of the evidence at 

that hearing that led to the trial court imposing a sentence of eight years’ confinement, which is 

near the maximum of the punishment range for a third degree felony.2

 Considering Ross’ prior 

criminal record and that Ross was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm a few years after 

being convicted of assault on a public servant, the trial court could have legitimate concerns 

about the safety of the community, thereby justifying the higher bond.

 1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a), (e) (West 2011).

2

An individual convicted of a third degree felony is subject to imprisonment for not less than two years and not more 

than ten years. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34(a) (West 2011).
5

Although the ability to make bond is one of the factors to be considered, it is not 

controlling and will not alone render the bond amount excessive. Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 

176, 178 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). “To show that he is unable to make bail, a defendant generally must 

show that his funds and his family’s funds have been exhausted.” Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 

146, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Ross testified that he was able to make 

his pretrial bond of $30,000.00, but that now he is indigent and dependent on his family to raise 

the money for the bond premium. Although he believed his family would be able to raise only 

$2,500.00 for a bond premium, there is no evidence of the income of these other family members 

that would support this belief. In addition, there was no testimony regarding whether these 

family members possessed assets that could be used to secure a loan for the bond premium. 

Therefore, Ross’ evidence does not bind the trial court to find that his family’s resources have 

been exhausted to the extent that the bonding premium could not be met. See Stephenson v. 

State, No. 06-13-00181-CR, 2013 WL 5234247, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 17, 2013, no 

pet.)

Finally, there is some evidence that Ross has close community ties, employment 

opportunities and that he complied with prior bond requirements. He also testified that he is 

willing to wear an ankle monitor and comply with other conditions the trial court imposed. 

These factors may tend to make him less of a flight risk. Although these considerations may 

favor a reduction of his bond, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the 
6

bond reduction, considering Ross’ prior criminal record, the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, and the length of his sentence.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Josh R. Morriss III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 4, 2015

Date Decided: February 20, 2015

Do Not Publish