## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

____ _________ ______________ No. 02

- 22

- 00045

- CR

_________________________ __

On Appeal from t he 30th D istrict Court Wichit a Cou nty, Texa s Trial Court No. DC30

- CV2022

- 0173
Diss enting Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach 

### E X PARTE 

### B RUCE 

### A LLEN 

### H ANSON2 DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION Because I cann ot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Han son ’ s request to lower the bail amount , I would affirm
. I therefore respectfully dissent. First, although the majority considers Hanson ’ s long residence in the county and his owning a hom e there as sufficient community ties, Hanson has no family in the county, and he provided no evidence of having any f riends or other current personal connections to the are a. Second, Hanson ’ s testimony was vague about the value of his assets
—he did
not kn ow the appro ximate value of h is house except that it is “ more than [$]100,000 , ” and he did n ot know how much money he had in his bank acc ount
— and h e
a cknowledged that he had not actually contacted any bail bond company about obtaining a bond
. T hus , his ina bility to obtain bond is hypothetical
. S ee Ex p arte Williams , 467 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 971) ( uphol ding tria l co urt ’s bail deci sion when ther e was no evid ence the appellant had made any effort to furnish bail) ; Milner v. State , 263 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet .) ; see also Ex parte Payten , N o. 02

- 13

- 004 47

- CR, 2013 WL 596844 9, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth N ov. 7, 2013, no pet.) (m em. o p., not designated for pub lication)
. The ma jority cites Ex parte Dueitt for the pro position that Hanson is not required to do a “useless thing ” in attempti ng to mak e bail , but in that case t he re cord
cont ained evidence suggesting that the funds of the a ccused and his family had already3 been exhausted in obtaining the accu sed ’s release at a lower bail amount that had been set after the accused ’s arrest but before h is indictment on two d rug offenses
. 529 S.W.2d 531, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
. After t he accused ’ s indictment on the two drug cha rges , the trial court raised the accused ’s bail amount from $10,000 to $60,000

— $20,000 on one char ge and $40,000 on the other. I d

. T he Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that “[a] lthough the record is far from clear on this p oint, it is reasonable to conc lude that the difficulties [the accused] and his family encountered in securing his release on $10,000 bail would be increased fo ur - fold in attempting to
meet even just the $40,000 bail
. ” Id. at 532

– 33
. We do not have that k ind of record here
. T hird, b asing a bail decision primarily on what the accused can afford eliminates the trial court ’ s role in setting bo nd and places the ac cu sed in the posture of determining what his or her bail should be. Ex parte B rown , 959 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)
. T he Court of Criminal Appeals has d i re cted that , instead, the “ primary factors ” to consider ar e the length of the se ntence that can be imposed and the nature of the off ense. Ex parte Rubac , 6 11 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)
. Here, Hanson faces a possible life sentenc e for the murd e r of his wife. See Tex. Penal C ode Ann . § 12.32 ; see Ex pa r te Scott , 122 S.W.3 d 866, 869 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (stating that when a defendant faces a l engthy se ntence , “ pretria l bond must be set sufficiently high to se cure the presence of t h e accused at tr ial4 because the accused ’ s reaction to the p r ospect of a lengthy sentence might be to not appear ” )
. The alleged offense , Hanson ’ s pot ential se ntence, and the lack of evidence showing that he made any attempt to obtain bond all sup port the tr i al court ’ s e xercise of discretion , even without considerin g Hanson ’ s lack of t ies to the area
. C f. Ex parte Barrera , No. 11

- 21

- 00131

- CR, 2021 WL 59 34626, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Dec. 16, 2021, pet. ref’d) (upholding $1,000,000 bond). A lthough a $1,000, 0 00 bond is high, it is within the range of bail amounts th at have been upheld for first

- degree felony offenses like murder
. See Ex parte Temple , 595 S.W.3d 8 25, 830 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d ) (c iting Ex parte Green , No. 02

- 13

- 00 474

- C R, 2014 WL 584960, at * 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 13, 20 14 , no pet.) (mem. o p. , not designated for publication )) ; see also Ex parte Garner , No. 10

- 18

- 00129

- CR, 2018 WL 3469834, a t *5 (Tex . App.

— Waco July 18, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated for publication )
. Accordingly, I woul d affirm the trial
court ’s order
.
/s/ Mike Walla ch Mike Wallach Justice Do Not Publish T ex. R. App. 47.2 (b) Delivered: May 12, 2022