Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 29, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00467-CR

NO. 14-20-00468-CR

NO. 14-20-00469-CR

EX PARTE JAMIN STOCKER

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1643380, 1643381, and 1643382

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jamin Stocker applied for writs of habeas corpus asking the court 

to lower his bail from $500,000 to $20,000 in each of three cases: aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon,1capital murder,2and murder.

3 The trial court denied relief. 

On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by not lowering 

bail to $20,000 in each case. We affirm.

1 Appeal number 14-20-00467-CR, habeas trial number 1643380, offense trial number 1562639.

2 Appeal number 14-20-00468-CR, habeas trial number 1643381, offense trial number 1585987.

3 Appeal number 14-20-00469-CR, habeas trial number 1643382, offense trial number 1601867.
2

BACKGROUND

A. State’s allegations against appellant

The indictment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon alleges that on 

August 21, 2017, appellant shot Brent Tapp in the leg from the second floor of a 

nearby apartment building. Tapp identified appellant in a photo array. Shortly after 

the shooting, appellant left Houston and went to Atlanta, allegedly to evade arrest, 

and he returned to Houston around two months later. The indictment for capital 

murder alleges that on November 7, 2017, appellant shot and killed Tapp in 

retaliation for or to obstruct prosecution of the aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon charge. The indictment for murder alleges that while investigating the first 

shooting, police discovered a rifle in appellant’s apartment that was allegedly used 

to murder Charlotte Walker in March 2016.

B. First bail proceedings

As of August 2019, bail had been set at $500,000 in each of the three cases. 

Appellant applied for habeas relief asking to be released on a personal bond or for 

the trial court to set bail to an unspecified amount “that defendant can make.” The 

trial court held a hearing on appellant’s applications and denied relief. Appellant 

appealed, asking this court to set bail at $20,000 in each case.4 We held appellant 

was not entitled to a personal bond. However, because the record contained no 

evidence to support either the $500,000 bail the trial court set or the $20,000 bail 

appellant requested, we remanded the cases to allow the parties to present evidence 

and argument to assist the trial court in setting reasonable bail and release conditions. 

See Ex parte Stocker, Nos. 14-19-00661-CR, 14-19-00662-CR, 14-19-00663-CR, 

2020 WL 2614620 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 22, 2020, no pet.) (mem. 

4 Appeal numbers 14-19-00661-CR (aggravated assault), 14-19-00662-CR (capital murder), and 

14-19-00663-CR (murder). 
3

op., not designated for publication).

C. Bail proceedings on remand

The trial court conducted a bail hearing on remand. Appellant testified. The 

documentary evidence included appellant’s mother’s affidavit, the charging 

instruments in all three cases, and a police officer’s sworn statement regarding the 

capital murder charge.

Appellant was 36 years old at the time of the second bail hearing. He had lived 

in Harris County for approximately 12 years. His family in the Houston area includes 

an unspecified number of siblings. His mother lives in Austin, and the record does 

not indicate where his father lives.

Appellant said neither he nor his family can afford the bond on the $500,000 

bail set in each case (a total of $1.5 million), either in cash or collateral. He has been 

in jail since January 2018, when he was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, and has been unable to earn an income during his incarceration. He testified 

his family could afford to pay the bond on $20,000 bail in each case, for a total of 

$60,000 bail. 

Appellant’s mother’s affidavit was to the same effect. She also said she would 

pay any expenses associated with appellant’s release and ensure he abided by all

conditions of his release. 

Appellant’s criminal history includes convictions in 2002 and 2004 in Georgia 

for possession of marijuana and driving under the influence, a 2007 conviction for 

unlawful carrying of a weapon, a 2013 conviction for obstructing a highway, and a 

2017 conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon. Since his incarceration, 

appellant had been found guilty of at least one disciplinary infraction (possession of 

a lighter).
4

The trial court lowered the bail in the aggravated assault case to $200,000 and 

left bail in the other two cases at $500,000 each. The judge explained her reasoning:

I’ve considered all of the evidence that has been presented as well as 

the arguments. I’m aware that . . . there hasn’t been any direct testimony 

on the facts of this case and this [has] all been presented through

documentation and essentially hearsay.

However, the charges and the accusations are extremely serious. I do 

understand that Mr. Stocker has limited means and the amount that he 

and his family can reach is $60,000 total or about 20,000 on each case. 

I understand that there are certain limitations that I can put on Mr. 

Stocker such as GPS monitor, however, I’m also aware of the

limitations of that [are] that it does not prevent somebody’s movement 

and the Court is only aware or only becomes aware of any sort of 

violation one to two, sometimes three or four days after the fact.

I believe that given everything that I’ve heard, the bond on the capital 

murder case is going to remain at 500,000, the bond on the murder case 

is going to remain at 500,000. . . . I will reduce the bond on [the 

aggravated assault case] . . . to 200,000. 

ANALYSIS

The right to be free from excessive bail is protected by the United States and 

Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 11. We review 

a challenge to the excessiveness of bail for an abuse of discretion. See Ex parte 

Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Under this 

standard, we may not disturb the trial court’s decision if it falls within the zone of 

reasonable disagreement. See Ex parte Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d 220, 230 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

The amount of bail required in any case is within the discretion of the trial 

court, subject to the following rules:

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

compliance with the undertaking.
5

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as an instrument of 

oppression.

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. art. 17.15.

In addition to these rules, case law provides that courts may consider the 

following set of factors: (1) the defendant’s work record; (2) the defendant’s family 

and community ties; (3) the defendant’s length of residency; (4) the defendant’s 

prior criminal record; (5) the defendant’s conformity with previous bond conditions; 

(6) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (7) the aggravating 

circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. Rubac, 611 

S.W.2d at 849–50. The trial court may also consider whether the defendant is a 

citizen of the United States. See Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 n.2 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 230. 

Sufficiently high to assure appearance but not oppress

Bail needs to be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the 

defendant will appear. When bail is set so high that a person cannot realistically pay 

it, however, the trial court essentially “displaces the presumption of innocence and 

replaces it with a guaranteed trial appearance.” Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 233 (quoting 

Ex parte Bogia, 56 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.)).

Appellant has ties to the community; he has resided in Harris County for more 

than a decade, and he has some siblings in the area. However, there is no evidence 
6

about appellant’s relationship with his local family. The record indicates he is 

homeless, and there is no evidence appellant would have a place to live in Harris 

County if he were released on bail. His mother, who has pledged to support him

financially and otherwise if he is released, lives in Travis County. Further, appellant 

went to Georgia for two months following his alleged shooting of Tapp. The trial 

court could reasonably consider the availability of these out-of-county and out-ofstate safe harbors as it considered whether to decrease bail.

Nature and circumstances of offense

The primary factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of bail 

are the nature of the offense and the punishment that may be imposed. Rubac, 611 

S.W.2d at 849. When the offense is serious and involves aggravating factors that 

may result in a lengthy prison sentence, bail must be sufficiently high to secure the 

defendant’s presence at trial. Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 230. But a defendant is 

presumed innocent of all charges, and a trial court must balance that presumption 

with the State’s interest in assuring the defendant’s appearance for trial. Id.

Appellant is charged with capital murder, murder, and aggravated assault with 

a deadly weapon. He faces automatic life imprisonment without the possibility of 

parole on the capital murder charge. Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.31(a), 19.03(b). If found 

guilty of murder, he can be sentenced from five to 99 years or life in prison. Id.

§§ 12.32(a), 19.02(c). Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as charged in this 

case is a second-degree felony and carries a term of two to 20 years’ imprisonment. 

Id. §§ 12.33(a), 22.02(b). If an affirmative finding is made that appellant used or 

exhibited a firearm, he will have to serve more of his sentence before he is eligible 

for parole than he would without such a finding. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

§ 508.145(d)(2). Recent opinions from our sister courts support a finding that 

$500,000 is reasonable bail in a capital murder or murder case, and $200,000 is 
7

reasonable bail for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.5

Ability to make bail

To demonstrate inability to make bail, a defendant generally must establish 

his and his family’s funds have been exhausted. Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 234. If he 

does not make that showing, a defendant must usually show he made an unsuccessful 

effort to furnish bail before bail can be determined to be excessive. Milner v. State, 

263 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The accused’s 

ability to make bail is only one factor to be considered in determining the appropriate 

amount of bail. Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 234. “If the ability to make bond in a specified 

amount controlled, then the role of the trial court in setting bond would be 

completely eliminated, and the accused would be in the unique posture of 

determining what his bond should be.” Id. (quoting Ex parte Miller, 631 S.W.2d 

825, 827 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982, pet. ref’d)).

The uncontested evidence shows appellant and his family cannot afford the 

bonds on the bail amounts currently set. The trial judge acknowledged that fact in 

explaining why she would not reduce bail to the requested amount. We note, though, 

5 E.g., Ex parte Lee, No. 13-20-00021-CR, 2020 WL 2988644 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

June 4, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (murder, $1,000,000); Ex parte 

Garner, No. 10-18-00129-CR, 2018 WL 3469834 (Tex. App.—Waco July 18, 2018, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (felony murder, $1,000,000); Ex parte Cardenas, 557 

S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2018, no pet.) (capital murder, $750,000); Ex parte 

Jones, Nos. 10-18-00387-CR, 10-18-00388-CR, 10-18-00389-CR, 2019 WL 1388746 (Tex. 

App.—Waco Mar. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (aggravated 

assault of a public servant, $250,000); Ex parte Hanson, No. 03-18-00795-CR, 2019 WL 

1065897 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 7, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, $200,000).

This court recently upheld a $1,000,000 bail for a defendant who had already been found 

guilty of murder and was awaiting a new trial on punishment. Ex parte Temple, 595 S.W.3d 825 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d). A primary factor in upholding bail in that case 

was that the defendant no longer enjoyed the presumption of innocence. See id. at 829.
8

that appellant offered no evidence of an unsuccessful effort to furnish bail. 

Future safety of victims and community

The record is silent about the circumstances of the shooting of Charlotte 

Walker. It is not silent, though, about the two shootings of Brent Tapp. According 

to a police officer’s sworn statement, appellant’s cell phone contained messages in 

which appellant admitted he shot Tapp the first time and suggested his motive was 

to solve problems appellant was having with “homeless drug addicts” near his house. 

Then, Tapp was shot and killed two months later, not long after appellant returned 

to Houston. The trial court could reasonably question whether appellant intended to 

kill Tapp the first time but missed, or whether appellant did not intend to kill Tapp 

in the first shooting but decided to kill him once it was clear appellant would be 

prosecuted for the first shooting. Both possibilities suggest appellant poses a 

significant danger to the community.

Appellant is entitled to the presumption of innocence in all three cases. Even 

affording appellant that presumption, the trial court could reasonably decide the 

allegations regarding the circumstances of the two Tapp shootings evinced sufficient 

danger to the community to deny appellant’s request to lower bail.

Rubac factors

Appellant’s work record. There is no evidence about appellant’s work history 

before he was jailed in January 2018.

Appellant’s family and community ties. As discussed above, appellant has 

family ties to Harris County and Travis County. He also appears to have ties to 

Georgia. 

Length of appellant’s residency. Appellant moved to Houston in his mid 

twenties and has lived in the area for 12 years.
9

Appellant’s prior criminal record. Appellant has several convictions, 

including two from more than 15 years before the events at issue in this case. It is 

not clear which, if any, of his convictions were for felonies. It appears none of the 

convictions involved a crime of violence.

Other bonds. There is no evidence that appellant was out on bond for another 

charge at the time he allegedly committed any of the three offenses at issue.

Aggravating circumstances in the charged offenses. The record supports 

inferences that appellant shot Tapp once, then shot and killed him two months later,

either to “finish the job” or to obstruct the prosecution for the first shooting.

We conclude appellant has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in 

denying his habeas application to reduce bail. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s habeas applications.

/s/ Frances Bourliot

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)