### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00417- CR NO. 03-05-00418- CR

Da vid K e lle r F ox , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 421ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 2004- 181 & 2004- 238, HO NORAB LE TODD A. BLO MERTH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n cause number 2004-181, a j u ry found appellant David Ke ller F ox g uilty of two counts of ag g ravated assault. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.02 ( West S upp. 2005). In cause number 200 4 -2 3 8 , t h e s ame jury

found appe llant guilty

of possessing more than f our g rams of morphine , more than four g rams of psilocin, a nd less than one g ram of me thamphetamine. SeeTex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.115(a) , (b), (d), 481.116 ( a), ( d) (West 2003). F or the methamphetamine offe nse, the jury

assessed a

two-y ear term i n state j ail and a $5000 fine. The jury assessed te n-y ear prison terms and $5000 fines for each of the ot her offense s, but imposit ion of these se ntence s was suspended a

nd appellant wa s place d on community supervision.2 Appellant’s sole poin t o f er ro r is that he was de nied equa l protection of the la w beca use the district cour

t did not give him c redit for his pr etrial jail time when it imposed the twoy ear state jail sentenc e. The State did not respond to this contention.

The re cord r efle cts that appe llant was ar rested f or these of

fense s on April 17, 2004. On Janu ary 10 , 2 00 5, a

pp e lla nt fi le d an a

pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s se e kin g a

re du c tio n in ba il. On the same date , t he di str ic t c ourt re du c e d b a il i n th e se c a

us e s f ro m a tot a l of $1 00 ,0 00 to $25,000. Appellant obtained a bail bond on Fe bruar

y 3, 2005. Appellant t es t i fi ed duringthe punishment phase that he spe nt a total of 296 day s in jail before his rele ase on the bond. In imposing
se nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nied app ella

nt’ s r e qu e st f

or ja il t ime c re dit : “ Ic an’ t g ive y ou tim e
serve d on a maximum , any way , beca use it’s requir ed. So y ou will do the two y ear s.” I n state jail felony

case s, a trial cour

t ge nera lly

has discre tion whether to g rant the d ef en d an tcr ed i taga i n s t h i s s en t en ce fo r a n y j ai l t i m e s erv edb et we en h i s arre s tan d h i s s en t en ci n g. Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 15(h)( 2) (W est Supp. 2005). I f, however, the de fenda nt is a sse sse d th e ma ximumse nte nc e , and if the de fe nd ant w a s c on fi ne d f oll ow inghis arr e st b e c a

us e he wa s unable to make bail due to indige nce, he m ust be given credit for his presentenc e jail time. Ho llo way v . S tate , 1 1 5 S
. W
. 3 d

7 9 7 , 7 9 8 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n2 0 0 3 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Ex parte Bates , 978 S.W .2d 575, 577 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 9 8)). To de ny time cre dit under these c ircumstance s would cause the defendant to suffe r i ncar cer ation beyond the m axim um punishment provided for the offe nse bec ause of

his indige nce, a

nd thus deny

him equal protec tion of the law. Id
. (c i t i n g Ex pa rte Ha rri s , 946 S.W .2d 79, 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).Appellant’s motion for pr ompt resolution is di smissed. 1 3

Ap pe lla nt r e c e ive d the ma ximum tw o- y e ar s e nte nc e pr ov ide d f or state ja il f

e lon ie s. See Tex. Pe n . Co d e A n n . § 1 2
. 3 5 ( a ) ( We s t 2 0 0 3 )
. T h u s , h e mu s t b e g iv e n c r e d it f o r the time he sp e nt i n ja il d

ue to h is i na

bil ity to a ff or d t he bai l in it ial ly

se t by the c ourt . T he po int

of e rr or is sustained. There are two judgme nts in cau s e n u m b er 2004- 238. The judg ment convicting appellant of

possessing le ss than one g ram of me t h am p hetamine a nd imposing a se ntence of two y e ars i n st ate ja il i s mo dif ie d to re fl e c t a

pr e tr ia l ja il t ime c re dit

of 29 6 d ay s. As mod if

ie d, thi s judgme nt is affirmed. The other judgme nt in cause number 2004-238, f or possession of morphine and psilocin, and the judg ment in cause number 2004-181 a re a ffirme d. 1

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med in Part; Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed in Part Filed: August 31, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh