### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 42 -C R

______________________________
EX PARTE: DESMOND DEWAYNE JACKSON

On Appea l from the 188th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 1539-H

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issI nit ia lly , th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d b on d. F oll ow inga he a ri ngon

Jac ks on ' s f

ir st p e tit ion

fo r w ri t 1 of habe as cor

pus, the court se t h i s b o n d at $750,000.00. J ackson the n filed this second pe tition se e kin g a re du c tio n o f t

hat amou nt. 2 O P I N I O N B y his pr e tr ia l w ri t of

hab eas cor

pu s, De smo nd

De wa y ne Jac ks on

so ug ht t o h a ve his $750,000.00 bail reduc ed in connec tion with his pending char g e of murder during the cour se of a 1 robber y . After a brie f hea

ring , the trial cour

t denied J ac k s on' s motion wit hout altering its bond
re qu ir e me nt. We a ff

ir m th a t de nia l. "T he p ri m ar y p u rp ose or objec t of an a ppear ance bond is to secure the pre sence of a defe nd ant in cou rtfor

th e tr ial of t he o ffen se ch arged. " Ex parte Rodriguez , 595 S.W .2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1980). Ba il should not be set so high a s to be oppressive, guara nteeing the def endant' s appea

r a n c e , b ut should be high e noug h to provide re asonable assura nce the defe ndant will appear

at trial. Ex parte I

vey , 5 94 S .W .2 d 9 8, 99 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. [Pan e l O p. ] 198 0) . B a il operates to balanc e the " presumption of innoce nce of the accused a nd the compellinginterest of the S tat e th at t he accus ed appea r to answ er the accus ati on again st hi m. " Ba lbo a v . S tat e , 612 S.W .2d 55 3, 55 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) (Cl int on , J., dis se nti ngin p a rt / c on c ur ri ngin p a rt ). Ne ve rt

he le ss, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the bail i s excessive. Rodriguez , 595 S.W .2d at 550. I n revie wing bond settings on a ppeal, we are g uided by Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt
. 17 .1 5 (V e rn on 20 05 ). We w ill re ve rs e3

the trial cour

t's de cision only

if the cour

t abused its discretion, that is, i f t h e d ec i s ion was made without refe renc e to any g uiding pr inciples or wa s, in other wor d s , ar b i t rary or unre asonable
. Mo ntgom e ry v . S

tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Even if we would have r eac hed
a dif fe re nt re su lt, we sh ou ld no t int e rv e ne if the tr ia l c ourt ' s ru lin g is w ith in t he zon e of

re a so na ble disag ree ment. Id . at 39 1 ( op . o n r e h' g ). Un de r Te xas law, the a mou nt o f b a il r e qu ir e d in

a ny c a se is within t he discre tion of the court, judg e, mag istrate, or of fice r taking t he bail, subjec t to the fo llo wi ngru le s:

1. The ba il shall be sufficiently high to g ive re asonable assura nce that the under taking will be complied with. 2
. T h e p o w e r to r e qu ir e b a il is n o t to b e s o u s e d a s to ma k e it an instrument of oppression. 3. The nature of the offe nse and the circ umstances under w hich it was committed are to be consider ed. 4. The ability to make bail is to be reg arde d, and proof m ay b e t aken up on thi s p oin t. 5. Th e futur e sa fe ty of a vic tim of the a lle g e d o ff

e ns e and the c omm

un ity shall be consider ed. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 17.15. In addition, co u rt s are to consider the a ccuse d' s work
rec ord, family

and community

ties, leng th o f residenc y , prior cr iminal recor d (if any ), and a ny
a g g ra vatin g c ir c ums tanc e s a lle g e d to have be e n in vo lve d in the of

fe ns e the a c c us e d is c ha

rg e d w ith committing. Ex parte Rubac , 611 S.W .2d 848, 849–50 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1981).I n Henson , w e re du c e d th e ba il from $7 50 ,0 00 .0 0 p e r c ount t o $ 50 0, 00 0. 00 pe r c ount, in 2 light of pr oof of the unpr ovoked murde r of thre e individuals but un d er evidence sug g esting that Henson wa s not the shooter and ha d strong community ties. See Henson , 131 S.W .3d 645. Her e, J ackson is ac cused of

being the shooter a

nd having alre ady trave led to Georg ia, from whic h state he was re turned a fter his a

rre st on this charg e. Jac ks on c a lle d to the sta

nd De te c tiv e Do ugB ri nk le y of the L on g vie w Po lic e De pa rtme nt, 3 but the trial court did not let him testify , ru l i ng that such testimony was c ontrary

to traditional proce dures a

nd would constitute improper pretrial di scover y . Presumably , this was influence d by J ackson' s expressed desire to test through B rin k l ey the suffic iency

of the e vidence of the a lleg ed crime. Jackson mentions this refusal in his statement of f acts, but does not make it a point of err or or an a rgume nt o n a

pp e a l. 4 I n th is c a se , Jac ks on

a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d its dis c re tio n in r e fu sin g to l ow e r b a il, be c a us e the State pr e se nte d n o e vid e nc e a bo ut t he natur e a nd

c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he of fe ns e that c ou ld justify setting suc h an excessively high level of bail, $750,000.00. Citing this Court to our case of Ex parte He nson , 131 S.W .3d 645 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.), in w hich we held bail of $7 50 ,0 00 .0 0 f

or e a c h o f thr e e c ounts of c a pit a l mur de r wa s e xce ssi ve , Jac ks on a rgue s th a t hi s b a il sh ou ld b e low e re d to no mor e tha n $ 10 0, 00 0. 00
. Th e State re sp on ds by po int ing ou t th a t th is i s a 2

c a pit a l murd e r p ro se c uti on , a s w a s Henson , and that, in line with that case , the amount required her e was not excessive. At the beg inning of

the hea ring , the cour

t, before h ea ri n g an y ev idence , stated that it was takin g jud ic ia l no tic e of

the c omp la int , th e a rr e st w a rr a nt, and the a tta c hme nts . T he re wa s li ttl e testimony g iven at the he aring
. J ackson te stified that he owne d nothing, that he had thre e childre n, 3

and that hi s wi fe wa s e mpl oy e d, bu t he r e xpe ns e s e xce e de d h e r i nc ome . H e te sti fi e d th a t he c ou ld not post bond, either per sonally or throug h eff

orts of family and friends, and that eve n the re questedWe do not see how F ifth Amendment consider ations would apply to questions about 4 whether the house the Jacksons lived in was re nted or owne d or had be en for eclose d on. I n th is c a se , th e ma

na g e r of a Ca sh Am e ri c a Pawn Sho p w a s a tta c ke d o uts ide the bu sin e ss, 5 robbed of approximately

$8,000.00 and shot to death. A m o n t h l ater, a Krog ers wa s robbed of approximately $14,000.00 by a simil arly arme d individual. The aff idavit refle cts that J ackson w as ide nti fi e d a s th e ro bb e r i n b oth ins tanc e s. 5 $1 00 ,0 00 .0 0 b on d w ou ld b e ve ry dif fi c ult to w ork o ut e ve n th ro ug h a bo nd sma

n. Th e Sta te qu e sti on e d Jac ks on , e lic iti ng te sti mony that he ha d no t be e n e mpl oye d f or se ve ra l mo nth s b e fo re his
arr e st a nd tha t hi s wif e wa s li vin g wi th f

ri e nd s a nd re la tiv e s b e c a

us e the Jac ks on s h a d lo st the ir house. Afte r a f

lurry of questions by the S tate, to m ost of which def ense c ounsel either obje cted or instructed his client not to answe r based on Fifth Amendment g rounds, J ackson te stified, ag ain, that 4 he owne d nothing. Th e qu e sti on

be fo re us is w he the r, ba se d o n th e inf or ma tio n be fo re the tr ia l c ourt , it pr op e rl y exercised its discre tion in setti ng bail in this case. The court had bef

ore it the c omplaint and an af fidavit prepa

red by Br inkley , which conta ined a deta iled and leng thy

descr iption of the char g ed cr ime and of a nother similar robbe ry that involved
an a pp are ntl y a c c ide nta l di sc ha

rg e of a pis tol bu t w ithno on e sh ot. 5 T h e c o u rt h adi n fo rm at i o n b ef o re i t s et t i n g o u t t h e n at u re o f t h e o ff en s e, a m u rd er

d u ri n g a robber y
— s ig n if ic a n tl y , w it

h Ja c k s o n a ll e g e d

to b e th e s h o o te r

— a n d o f th e c ir c u ms ta

nces surrounding its commiss ion. I t had evidenc e about J ackson' s ability or i nability to make a pa rticular level of ba il. Si g nificantly , it had evidenc e that, af ter the shooting , J ackson ha d depar ted Texas and6

was a rre sted in Georg ia and r eturne d to Texas. Further , the cour t had i n fo rm at i o n about another
arme d robber

y committed only a wee k later, alleg edly by the same person, with de tails outlining the State' s case ag ainst him for both alleg ations. That addr esses t h e ci rc u m s tance s surrounding the orig inal off

en s e and c ommunity

safe ty considerations. The amount set is high, but is within the rang es of ba il set by

other c ourts for similar ty pes of c rimes. See id. at 648–49. We also note that the possible punishment was sugg ested a s being life imprisonment and that J ackson a ppare ntly had not had g ainful employ ment for six months befor e the c rimes. Cf. Cl emons
v . S tat e , 2 20 S.W. 3d

17 6, 17 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —E a stl a nd 20 07 , n o p e t.)
. We re c og nize that th e ina bil ity to make this level of ba il is one of a number of fa ctors to b e co n s i d er ed, but that fa ctor ne ither controls the amount of ba il set nor automatically rende rs the amount excessive. Id. We c on c lud e tha

t th e c ourt

ha d t he di scr etion to se t ba il at th is l e ve l and ha d a de qu a te information bef

ore it to a llow it to make a r easone d deter mination. Under these fac ts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reduc e bond as r equeste d.7

We affir m the order
.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J une 4, 2008 Date D ecide d: J une 27, 2008 Publis h