i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 66 4- CR EXP AR TE Steven VE S EL KA Fr om the 216th J udicial District Court, Ba ndera County , Texas Trial Court No. CR-08-126 Honora ble Stephen B . Ables, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 19, 2008 AFF I RMED Ste ve n V e se lka

is c ha rg e d w iththe c a

pit a l murd e r o f a

c hil d le ft in h is c a re . Ve se lka

a pp e a ls the trial cour

t’s order loweringhis bond from $1,000,000 to $750,000, ass er t i n g t h at t he lower ed amount is stil l excessive. We affir m the trial court’ s order
. The primar

y purpose of an appear ance bond is to secur e the presenc e of the acc used at the trial on the cha

rg ed off ense. Br own v . S

tat e , 11 S.W .3d 501, 502 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 20 00 , n o p e t.) ; Ex

pa rteMi lbu rn , 8 S.W .3d 422, 424 (Tex. A pp.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.). A pe rson seekinga re duction in bond has the burde n of showing that the amount set is excessive. Br own , 11 S.W. 3d a t 50 2; Ex

pa rteCha v

ful l , 945 S.W .2d 183, 186 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).04- 08- 0066 4- CR

- 2- Th e de c isi on reg a rd inga pr op e r b a il amou

nt l ie s w ith in t

he so un d d isc re tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . Br own , 1 1 S. W.3 d at 50 2; Ex pa rteMi lbu rn , 8 S.W .3d at 424. Article 17.15 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e sets for th t he following rules for fi xing the a mou

nt o f b a il: 1. The ba il shall be sufficiently high t o gi v e re asonable assura nce that the undertaking w ill be complied with. 2. The powe r to requir e bail i s n o t t o be used to make it an instrument of oppression. 3. The nature of the offe nse and the ci rcumstanc es under which it was committed are to be consider ed. 4. Th e a

bil ity to m a ke ba il i s to be re g a rd e d, a nd pr oo f may be take n u po n th is po int
. 5. Th e futur e sa fe ty

of the vic timof

the a lle g e d of

fe ns e a nd the c omm

un ity sh a ll be conside red. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 17.15 (V ernon 2005) . The following fac tors should also be
we ig he d in

de te rm ini ngthe a mou

nt o f b on d: ( 1) the a c c us e d’ s wor k re c or d; (2 ) t

he a c c us e d’ s f

a mil y and community

ties; ( 3) the acc used’s leng th of residenc y ; ( 4) the acc used’s prior criminal re cord, if any ; (5) the a ccuse d’s co n fo rm i t y wi th the conditions of previous bond; (6) the exis tence of outstanding bonds; and (7) ag g ravating circumstance s alleg ed to have been involved in the of fense
. Br own , 11 S.W .3d at 503. I n consideringthe nee d for a sufficie nt bail to ensure c ompliance, the tr ial court wa s require d to take into considera

tion that Veselka lied to police reg ardinghis identity when que stioned on the day of the off

ense. V eselka ’s mother, who w as pre sent at t h e s ce n e, did not corre ct the misidentification. I n addition, when an inve stigating of fice r conta cted Vese lka approximately one
we e k be fo re the ind ic tme nt wa s re tur ne d, Ve se lka pr ov ide d the of fi c e r wi th a

San A nto nio a dd

re ss04- 08- 0066 4- CR

- 3- ev en t h o u gh Ve s el k a wa s arre s t ed at h i s p ar en t s ’ ho m e in Ke rr v i l l e wh er e ap p ar en t l y h e w as l i v i n g. Finally , the day befor e he was ar rested, V eselka

told a friend that he planned to move to Costa Rica within six ty

day s. This conversation o cc u rr ed af ter Ve selka’s attorney

called la w enf orce ment of fi c ia ls t o in qu ir e a

bo ut t he re a so n th e y

we re atte mpt ingto c on ta c t hi s c lie nt. Although ba il may

not be used a s an instr

u me n t o f o p pression, Ve selka’s pa

rents testified that they had “mor e or le ss” alwa y s supported V es el k a fi n ancia lly . Vese lka’s par ents had be en
unsucce ssful in obta ining a loan to pa y a cash deposit for a bond; however , Vese lka’s mother ow ned
a 19 0 a c re ra

nc h that c ou ld be us e d a s c oll a te ra l in lie u o f t he c a shde po sit . V e se lka ’s pa re nts a lso
ow ne d the ir ho me a nd se ve ra l re nta l pr op e rt ie s. Th is s a me e vid e nc e a lso mus t be c on sid e re d w ith reg ard to Ve selka’s ab i lity to make bail; howeve r, “[s]i mply beca use a de fenda

nt cannot mee t the bond set by

the trial cour

t does not automatica lly

rende r the ba il ex cessive.” Br own , 11 S.W .3d at 504. Vese lka is char g ed with ca pital murder whic h is punishable by life in pr ison or death. T EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . § 12.31, 19.03 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008)
. Vese lka admitted that he wa s alone with the victim and his three- y ear -old sister at the t ime of t he inj ury . Vese lka gave differ ent versions of how the victim was hurt, including hitting his head on a table. The victim’s three -y ear -old sister stated that Vese lka hurt the victim. A neig hbor hea rd a ba by scre aming and s ev er al l o ud thuds that sounded like ce ment sacks be ing dr opped about 2:30 p.m. on the date of the offe nse. Althoug h the neig hbor knocke d on Vese lka’s door, he did not ans we r. On e o f the doctors who r eviewe d the repor ts stated that the neig hbor’s testimony was consistent with the probable timing of the c hild’s fata l injury . The doc torstated that the injuries we re so se vere that the child would have been imm e diate ly

bli nd a nd imm e diate ly

inc a pa c itate d a

nd a ny on e wo uld

have imm e diate ly

no tic e d it
.04- 08- 0066 4- CR

- 4- Finally , althoug h Vese lka and his pa rents had lived in Kerr

ville and the surr ounding c ounties fo r a pp ro xima te ly

tw e nty -f ive y e a rs , V e se lka

ha d p ri mari ly

liv e d w ithhis pa

re nts or in one of

the ir
re nta l ho us e s. Ve se lka ’s fathe r t e sti fi e d th a t mo st o f t he tim e Ve se lka

do e s n ot h a ve a

job , s o Vese lka’s par ents financ ially support him. At the time of the offe nse, Veselka had a n active w arr ant fo r a n und isc los e d off

e ns e . I n ad dit ion , tes tim on y a t the bo nd he a ri nga llu de d to a no the r p os sib le offe nse that occ urre d in J anuar y of 2008. Finally , in addition to Veselka’s f ailure to prope rly

identify himself on the day of the offe nse, Vese lka’s mother had clea ned the crime sc ene be fore the offic ers
wer e able to return late r that day or the ne x t day

to ga ther e vidence
. Vese lka ar g ues that the fa cts in his case a re similar to an o t h er r eporte d case in which the court of a ppeals re duced the amount of bail from a $2,000,000 sure ty bond or $500,000 ca sh bond to $100,000. Se e Ex

pa rteMi lbu rn , 8 S.W .3d at 423, 427. I n that case , howeve r, the a ppellant made
arr ang ements to surre nder himself. Se e id
. at 426. I n our ca se, Ve selka misidentified himself on the da y of the of fe ns e a nd pr ov ide d a San An ton io a dd re ss wh e n c on ta c te d on e we e k pr ior to h is a rr e st
even though he appar ently was living with his pa rents in Ker

rville. I n addition, the appellant in the
re po rt e d ca se ha d be e n emp loy e d pri or to his a rr e st, wa s p a y ingc hil d s up po rt , a nd c ou ld r e tur

n to his employ

ment if rele ased. Se e id . at 42 6. Ve se lka ha s n e ve r o bta ine d ste a dy e mpl oy me nt a nd is fi na nc ia lly su pp or te d b y his pa re nts . I n v ie w o f th e ev ide nc e pr e se nte d, we c a nn ot c on c lud e tha t th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion in only

reduc ing the bail to $750,000. The trial cour t’s order is affirme d.

Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH