Opinion filed Au gust 6, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 01 35 -CR

____ ____ __ BILLY WAY NE HAY NES , A ppellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 161st Distr ict Court

Ector C ounty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. W-3642- B

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l pursuant to T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 31 from the de nial of an a pplication for wr it of ha be a s c or pu s se e kin g a

bo nd re du c tio n. We a ff

ir m. I n his application filed on F ebrua ry 2, 2009, Billy

Way ne Ha y nes con t ended that he was illega lly confine d, that the State was not r eady for trial beca use an indictment ha d not y et bee n filed,Article 17. 15 1 states: 1
Sec. 1

. A

d ef endan t w ho i s detained in jail pend ing trial of an acc usation ag ainst him m ust be release d ei the r on per sona l bond or by re duci ng the am ount of

ba il re quire d, i f

the s tate is not read y

fo r tr ia l of

the cr im ina l a ct ion f

or w hic h he is be ing de ta ine d w ithi n: ( 1 ) 9 0 d a ys fr o m t h e c o mme n c e me n to f h i s d e t e n t i o n i f h e i s a c c u s e do f afe l o n y; (2 ) 3 0 da y s fro m

th e co m m e n cement of h is de te n ti o n if he is ac cu sed of a m isdem eanor pu nish able by a s entence of im

priso nm ent in jail for m ore than 1 80 day s; (3 ) 1 5 da y s fro m

th e co m m en cement of h is de te n ti o n if he i s accu sed of a m is dem ea

nor puni sha

ble by a s ent enc e of

im pris onm ent

f or 180 day s or l es s; or (4 ) five d ays f

ro m t h e c o m m en cement of h is de te n ti o n if he is ac cu sed of a mi s d e me a n o r

p u n i s h a b l e b y a fi n e o n l y. Sec. 2. The provision s of

this article do no t apply to a def endan t w ho is: (1) s er v ing a se nte nce of im

pris onm ent f

or a nothe r of f ens e w hile the de f

enda nt i s serv ing that sentence; (2) be ing deta ine d pending tria l of anothe r ac cus at ion ag ai nst the de f enda nt a s to w hic h the a pplic abl e per iod ha s not y et e la pse d; (3) in com petent to stand trial, durin g the perio d of the defe nd ant’s incompetence; or (4) be ing de ta ine d f or a v iola tion of the c onditi ons of

a pre v ious re le as e re la

te d to the s af et y of a v ic tim of the a lleg ed of

f ens e or t o the s af

et y of the c om m unity unde r t his article.

2 and that T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 17.151 (Ve rnon S upp. 2008) mandated that either he be 1 rele ased or

his bond be reduc ed. On a ppeal, a ppellant complains that the trial c ourt err ed by failing to set a per sonal rec og nizance bond. The re cord r efle cts that appe llant was ar rested on O ctober

24, 2008. On Fe bruar

y 10, 2009, appellant wa s indicted for the murder of Rey Valdez, for eng ag ing in criminal ac tivity with the street g angAry an Circle t o commit murder, and f or eng ag ing in c riminal activity with the street g ang Ary an C ircle to commit assault on Dwa in Ba rina a nd Trac ey Roupp. All four offe nses wer e alleg ed to ha ve occur red on October 9. 2008. A hea ring on appellant’ s application wa s held on Marc h 23, 2009. At the he ari ng , a

pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d th a t he did

no t ow n a

ve hic le that he c ou ld s e ll, that he did not own any

stocks or bonds, and that he did not have a sa vings a ccount. He stated that he did not have “ any other holds” on him other tha n his c onfinement in the Ector County J ail for the a lleg ed3

October 9 offe nses. Appellant state d that he had ma de no ef fort to ra ise “a n y amount of money tow ard [his ] bon d o f $ 50 0, 00 0. ” He fu rt he r t e sti fi e d th a t he tho ug ht he wo uld be g e tti ngan in c ome tax refund of $2,500. W ith that ref und, appellant testified that he “mig ht be able to make a $50,000 bond.” On cr oss-examination, appellant denied that he was the president of the Ary an Circle. I t is undisput ed that appe llant was inca rce rate d more than ninety day s befor e an indictment

was re turned. The State explained that the delay was d ue to the fa ct that the ca se wa s filed on Dec ember

29, 2008, and that a g rand jury wa s n o t ca l l ed i n Ector County until the week of J anuar y 26, 2009, beca

u s e o f the holiday s, the Presidential Inaug uration, and Ma rtin Luther King Da y . Atot a l of

se ve n p e op le we re inv olv e d in the se of fe ns e s, and

the dis tr ic t a tto rn e y

e xer c ise d h is discretion to not prese nt these complex ca ses at the first meeting of the g rand jury . I nstead, he opted t o m ak e t h e f

o u r- t o fi v e- h o u r p re s en t at i o nat t h e F eb ru ary 1 0 m ee t i n g. David Way

ne C allawa

y testified at the hearing that he was with appellant on the nig ht of the offe nses. Callawa

y stated that he sa

w appe llant fire a

g un in the direc tion of a house a nd that he later lear ned that someone had bee n killed as a result. Callaway said that appellant was the only person he sawfire a

g un. Callaway

stated that on O ct o b er 26, 2008, he informe d the police wha t had ha pp e ne d. Sin c e the n, Ca lla wa y sa id that he ha d re c e ive d thr e a ts fr om ap pe lla nt. Ap pe lla

nt h a d to ld him that he was a

“dea d man walking ,” that he had a “ bullet with [ Callaway ’s] name on it,” and not to “send c heese to a rat.” C allawa y testified that his family

had re ceive d threats and that he wa s
c o n c e r n e d f o r t h e i r s a f e t y. Ke vin Ranc e Jac ks on te sti fi e d tha t he saw a pp e lla nt f ir e a g un tow ard the ho us e . A ft e rw a rd s, appellant told J ackson that he thoug ht “he ha d g ot one.” The State a dmitted into evidence a pen packet containing appellant’s prior convictions for sexual assault of a child, burgla ry o f a h ab itation, and possession of a de adly wea pon in a pena l instit ution. The trial c ourt hea

rd counse l’s closing arguments and denie d the application. We reviewthe trial cour

t’s ruling under a

n abuse of discretion standa rd. See E x parte Rubac , 61 1 S. W.2 d 8 48 , 8 50 (T e x. Cr im App . 1 98 1) ; C l e m o n s v
. Sta te , 220 S. W. 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 8 ( T e x. Ap p. —E a stl and

20 07 , n o p e t.) ; see also T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 17.15 (V ernon 2005)4

(g iving tria l court discre tion to set amount of bail). As such, we wil l n o t d i s t u rb the trial c ourt’s ruling if it wa s within the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment. Mo ntg om e ry v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Ar tic le 17 .1 51 is p e rm iss iv e. I t a llo ws the tr ia l c ourt to r e le a se the a c c us e d if c e rt a in conditions are me t. Howeve r, Article 17.151 does not absolutely “mandate” suc h a re lease . After revie wing the re cord, w e find that the trial court did not a buse its discretion by

denying a

ppellant’s reque st that he be re lease d pursuant to Article 17.151. “‘B ail’ is the s ecur ity g iven by the ac cused that he will appea r and a nswer be fore the prope r court the a ccusation broug ht ag ainst him, and includes a bail bond or a pe rsonal bond.” T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . a

rt . 1 7. 01 (V e rn on

20 05 ). Ar

tic le 17 .1 5 p ro vid e s th a t th e a mou nt o f b a il: [I ]s t o be re g ulated by the court, judge , mag istrate or office r taking the bail; they are to be g overne d in the exercise of this disc re t i o n b y t h e Constituti on and by the fo llo wi ngru le s:

1. Th e ba il s ha ll b e suf fi c ie ntl y hig h to g ive re a so na

ble assura nce that the undertaking w ill be complied with. 2. The powe r to requir e bail is not t o b e so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.
3

. The nature of the offe nse and the circ umstances unde r which it was c ommitt ed ar e to be c onsidered. 4. The a bility to make bail is to be reg arde d, and proof may be take n u

po n th is p oin t.
5. The future safe ty of a victim of the alleg ed offe nse and the community

shall be consider ed. The a bility to make bond is one of the m any fac tors to be considered; however, it does not contr ol the amount of ba il and will not automatically rende r an amount excessive. Ex pa rteCha rle

swo rth , 60 0 S. W.2 d 3 16 , 3 17 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Ex parte Branc h , 5 53 S.W. 2d 38 0, 38 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 77 ); Clemons , 220 S.W .3d at 178. I f the ability to make bond in a speci fi ed amount
c on tr oll e d, the n the ro le of the tr ia l court in se tti ng bo nd wo uld be e lim inate d, a nd the a c c us e d w ou ld b e in a p o s it io n to d e te r

mi n e w h a t h is b a il s h o uld be. E x parte Hunt , 1 3 8 S. W. 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 ( T e x.5

App.—For

t Worth 2004, pet. re f’d) ; Ex parte Miller , 6 31 S.W. 2d 82 5, 82 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1982, pet. re f’d)

. I n addition to the rules li sted in Article 17.15, the foll owing fac tors may also be c onsidered: po ssi ble punis hme nt, the a c c us e d’ s w or k r e c or d, his tie s to the c omm un ity , th e len gth of h is

re sid e nc y , his pr ior c ri min a l re c or d, his c on fo rm ity wi th a ny pr ior ba il b on d c on dit ion s, his a bil ity or inability

to make a ba il bond, and the exist ence of any outst anding bail bonds. Ex pa rte Cha rle swo rth , 6 00 S.W. 2d

a t 31 7; E

xp a r teIve

y , 5 9 4 S

. W .2d 98, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Ex parte Vasque

z , 5 58 S.W. 2d

47 7, 47 9 ( Te x . Cr im. Ap p. 19 77 ); Clemons , 220 S.W .3d at 178; E xp a r teH unt , 13 8 S. W.3 d at 50 6; Ex parte Simpson , 77 S.W .3d 894, 896-97 (Te x . App.—Tyler 20 02 , n o p e t.) ; De

Pe na v . S tat e , 56 S.W .3d 926, 928-29 (Te x . App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Br own v . S

tat e , 1 1 S. W.3 d 5 01 , 5 03 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D is t.] 200 0, no pe t.) ; se e als o Ex parte Rubac , 611 S.W .2d at 849. The pr imary purpose of the bail bond is to secure the ac cused’ s prese nce in court. Ex parte Vasque z , 558 S.W .2d at 479. The accuse d has t he burden to prove that bail is ex cessive. Id. Aft er revi ewi ng the re c or d b e fo re thi s c ourt , w e fi nd that th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its di s cr et i on in denying a

ppellant’s re quest to be re lease d on a $50,000 bond. The nature of the offe nses, appe llant’s criminal re cord, a nd the testimony at t he hearing support the trial cour t’s action. Appellant’s c ontentions on appea l are overr uled. The orde r of the tr ial court is af firmed.

PER C URI AM
Aug ust 6, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.