### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00404-CR

Ex pa rte D on ald Ch ach ere

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. GV100461, HONORABLE FRANK W. BRYAN JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

Dona l d Ch ach ere i s c onf

i ne d w hi l e a wai ti ng tri al on a n i nd i ctm en t f or s ol i ci tation of capi talmurd er . H is bail i s $7 00, 000 . H e pe t itio ned fo r a wr it o f habeas co rp us, co mplaining tha t t he
amou nt of bai

l i s exces si ve an d aski ng i t be reduced or, alternativ el y, that he b e rele ased on personal bond. The wri

t issued a nd af ter a hearin

g, reli ef wa s deni

ed. Chach ere fi rst ar gues that he m

ust be r ele as ed un de rt he t er ms o f ar t icle 17. 151 . T ex. Code Crim

. Proc. An

n. art. 17.151, § 1 (West Supp. 20 02). Thi s statute prov i de s th at a pe rs on detain ed pend ing t rial o f a felony

accusation m

ust be rel eased, eithe r o n per so nal bond or by red ucing t he am oun t of ba i l req ui red , i f the State i s n ot rea dy f ortrial wi thin n in ety days af

ter d etention begins
. Id ., § 1(1). The recor d does no t est abl ish the date of

Chach ere’ s arre st. We will a ss ume t ha t his de ten ti on began someti me between Ma

rch 15, 2001, when

the arrest warrant was is sued, and March 28, when the writ appl

ic ation wasfil

ed. On Ju ne 15 , t he pr os ecu t or t old t he court that t he State was2

ready for tr ial . Under t he ci

rcumst ances, thi s wa s a prim a faci e showing of the State ’s readines s wit hin the p resc ri be d ni nety d ays an d sh i f ted to Cha

ch ere the burden

to show othe

rwi se. Jones v. State , 803 S.W .2d 712 , 717 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1991 ); Ex parte Brosky , 863 S.W.2d 775, 778 (T ex. App.—F ort Worth 19 93, n o pet.). Chach ere cite s t wo fact s as r ebu tt in g the Stat e’s prim

a faci e showing of readi

ness. Fi rs t, he n otes

th at h e w as re i n di cte d on Ju n e 8 , on l y on e w eek b ef

oreth e S tate ’s

an n oun cemen t. The purpo se of the rei

ndictmen t was to correct a typographical err or regardin

g the date of the alle ged off ense. T he St at e ma y be r ea dy fo rt r ial e ve n if t he ind ict me n t i s de f ecti ve . Brosky , 863 S.W.2d at 778 . Chachere’s rein

dictmen t did not r ebut t he prim

a faci e showing of readi

ness. Second, Chach

ere points out that cer t ain aud io r eco rd ings o f te lepho ne co nver sat ions between himself and an und er co ver age nt of t he St at e w er e, at t he t ime o f t he wr it hear ings, being “en han ced” beca use po rt ions w er e inaud ible. The se r eco rd ings we re t hus u navailable for use by the Sta te at t ha t t ime a nd co uld no t immed iat ely be mad e a va ilable to the defense pu r su an t t o di sc o ve r y. The pros ecutor tol

d the c ourt, h

ow ev er, t ha t “t he t ap es t ha t I be lieve t ha t ar e n ec es sa ry [fo rt r ial] h av e b een tra n scri b ed .” In an y ev en t, the agent was available to test if y to t hesecon

v er sa ti on s wi th Chach ere. See Ex parte Watson , 940 S.W.2d 733, 736 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.). That the defense had n

ot completed discovery

did not rebut the St ate’s showing of readin ess. The record do es no t de mo nst r at e a pp ella nt ’s en t it leme nt t o r ele as e p ur su an t t o ar t icle 17.151. Po intof e rr or t wo is ove rr uled. We t ur n t o C hache re ’s first po int, by whi ch h e argues that the am ount o f b ai l i

s exces si ve.3 The pri mary purpos e of

ba i l i s to secure th e pres ence of the def endan t. E x part e Vas q uez , 558 S. W.2 d 47 7, 479 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 197 7) . T he se t t ing o f bail is co mmi t t ed t o t he di screti on of th e tr i al cou rt or mag i strate , but th

e e x ercise of th is di sc re t ion is go ver ned by t he
con sti tution and statutes
. SeeTe x. Code Crim . Proc. An n. art. 17.15 ( West Supp. 20 02 )
. Ba il sho uld be sufficient ly hi

gh t o g ive rea so nable ass ur ance t hat t he und er t aking w ill be co mplied wit h, bu t t he power to require b ai l i

s not to be used s o as t o mak e it an i nstrumen t of oppre ssi

on. Id . art. 17.15 (1), (2). The nat ur e o f the offense and t he ci rcum stan ces und er wh i ch i t was c omm

i tted arefact or s t o be considered

in setting b ai l, as i

s the f uture safety

of the comm

uni ty an d the v ict im of the alle ged off en se. Id . a

rt. 1 7.1 5( 3) , (5 ). T h e def en da n t’s ab i l i ty to make ba il also must be co nsid er ed , bu t is not of i tself contro ll in g. Id. art. 17.15 (4); Ex

parte Gentry , 61 5 S
. W. 2d 22 8, 23 1 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1981)
. I n d et er mining t he like liho o d o f t he de fen da nt co mplying wit h t he co nd it io ns o f ba il,
con si de rati on also may be given to suc h factor s as the d efendant’s t ies t o t he co mmu nit y, coop era ti on wi th t he po lice, a nd

record of appe aran ces i n the pas t. See Ex parte Williams , 619 S.W.2d 180, 183 (T ex. Crim. App. 198 1); Gentry , 615 S. W.2d at 231 ; Ex parte Parish , 5 98 S .W. 2d 8 72, 873 (T ex. Crim. App. 198 0); Ex parte Keller , 595 S.W .2d 531 , 533 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1980 ). The burden of

proo f is on the ap plic an t to prove tha

t bai l i s ex ces si ve . Ex parte Rubac , 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim . App. 1981). We revi ew the trial

court ’s rul

in g for an abuse of d i scre tion
. Id . at 850. The State’s

pri mary wi tn es s w as Te x as Ra n ger Sa l v ador A b re o. Acc ordi

n g to A br eo, Chach ere co nt ac t ed Ge o r ge t o wn pr iva t e d et ec t ive Be ve r ly McKi nne y i n the f al l of 2000 and asked her i f s he kn ew someone w

il li ng to kil l h is form er wif e, Mar la Chac her e. McKinney co nt act ed t he1 This meet ing, like t he De cember meet ingbetween Ch achere an d McKi nne y, was vi deotaped. The vi deotapes were adm itted i

n evi den ce a t the heari

ng a nd v i ewed by the d i stri ct court be f

ore ruli ng. 4 police, an d in No ve mbe r20 00 Abr eo ag r ee d t o po se as t he hit man . At a me et ing in Decem ber 2000, McKi nne y to ld C hach ere she kn ew someone w

il li ng to commi

t t he m urderfo r$3 00 0 a nd ga ve him Abreo’s cel

l phon e n um be r. Chach ere calle d Ab

reo several

tim es i n earl y J anuary 2001. Al though Chach ere us ed what A br eo c al l ed “ cod ed l an gua ge ,” th e of f i cer un de rs tood Chach ere to say t hat he wanted his f orme r wi f e, an d perh apsher boy

f ri end, m urdere d. Ab

reo and Chach

ere agreed

to me et i n A usti n on Jan uary 13. At the January

me eting, Ch

achere told A

breo he was f

rom Houston and expl

ai ned that he wa s ti red of his for mer w ife and o f payingch ild s up po r t . Ch ac he r e g av e A br eo t he na mes o f his fo rme r w ife and he

r b oyf ri en d a nd de scri be d the n ei gh bor hood i n w hi ch the y l i ve d i n S an A nton i o. He indicat ed t hat t he bes t t ime to co mmi t t he m urder woul d be

spri ng b reak, w hen Chach ere wo uld have custody of h

is daughter. They

dis cussed price, an

d C h ach er e s ai

d h e w oul d p ay wi th his in co me tax refun d. Abreo gave Chachere a l ist of i tems that he wo uld need, such as ph ot ogr aphs and m

aps. It was agreed that t hey

would m eet again in about a week. 1 Chac here ca lled Abr eo se ve r al mo r e t imes
. Alt ho ug h C ha ch er e n ev er ind ic ated a des ire t o ba ck o ut of t he de al, t he t wo men never aga in met in per so n. As spr ing bre ak ne ar ed, t he police be ca me concerned that Chac here m igh t have m ade other arrangeme

nts for the kill

in g. They
m ov ed Ma rla Ch ach er e to a

h otel an d p rocur ed

th e w ar ra n t f or C h ach er e’ s a

rre st.5 Ma r la Chach ere testifi ed that she and h

er form er husb and h

ad a “l ong, nasty di

vorce” in 1999. She sai

d that t here ha

d been “ph ys ic al confrontations” duri

ng thei r marriage, but that t he police had n

ever been calle d. She sai

d that she b egan to fear Ch achere af ter bein g to ld b y the police that h e w as

pl an n i n g to h i rea m an to kill her. S he also des cr ibed an incide nt in which Chac her e ga ve Hou ston police i nf ormation that resul

ted in h er arrest o n drug charges that we re su bse qu en t ly dis mi ssed. She ackn owl edge d tha

t Cha ch ere h ad m ade h i s ch i l d sup port pay me nts and h ad compl ie d wit h all cou rt or der s re gar ding cu st od y and visita t ion.

Chachere’s only

witness was hi

s brot her. He t estifi

ed that Chachere i s a lo ng t im e
re sident of

Hou ston , wh

ere hi s p are nts al so l i ve , an d hascu stod

y of hi s s on from a previ ous marriage. He sai d Ch ach ere ha s he ld t he sa me jo b fo rfift ee n yea r s, bu t did no t na me his employer , d esc ribe t he
na ture of h i s w ork , or s

tate hi s s al ary. A cc ordi

ng to Ch ac he re’ s b roth er, Ch

ac he re d oesnot ow n a ho me or a vehicle, and ha s no funds. Hi s f am i l y hi red Ch ac he re’ s a ttorn ey an d w oul d have to p ay

f or any bond. At m

ost, the fam

il y c ould af ford a $200,000 bond.
Nature and circum stances of off ense. The return of an i

ndictmen t establishes

as a ma t t er o f law t ha t t he r e is pro babl e cause to bel ie ve that Chach ere i s gui l ty of soli ci tin g cap i tal m urder. Ex parte Plumb , 595 S.W.2d 544, 545 (T ex. Cr im. App. 198 0); Ex parte Welch , 729 S.W.2 d 306, 3 09 (Tex . App.—Da l l as 1 987, n

o pet.). So licitinga

ca pit al o ffen se is a f

i rst deg ree f elony . Tex . Pen . Code A

nn . § 15.03 (d)(1) (W

est 199 4). Chach ere argues that the evidence at the hea rin g establ is hes that he is no t gu ilt y o f t he o ffen se . T his
ar gu men t is n ot pe

rs ua si v e b ec au se

th e S tate did no t ne ce ss ar ily pr es en t all it s e vid en ce at t he wr it6

heari ng. Chac her e’s a rg ument also dep ends on a n e va lua ti on of t he we ight and c re dibili

t y of t he
ev ide nc e. T ha t t as k is one for t he t rier of fac t at t rial. T her e is no t hing in the record before us that establ is hestha t Ch ac he re c oul d n ot be gui l ty of the of f en se al l eg ed , or that the l

i ke l i hood of convi ction i s unusua

ll y l ow. Amount of bail and ab ility to make bai l. Appe llantre fers u s t o a 199 3 o pinion r edu cing pretrial bai l i n a capi tal m urdercase f rom $1,000 ,000 to $75,0 00. Exparte Mc Donald , 852 S.W.2d 730, 736 ( T ex . Ap p. —S an Ant o nio 1993, no p et .) . I n t hat op inion, the court reviewed t he r epo rt ed d ecisio ns in cap ital ca ses a nd fo und
none approvin

g bai l e xceedi ng $100,000. Id . at 733. McDonald is al most ni ne y ears old. T he sa me courtmorere cen

tl y up h el d a n ord er setti n g p re trial

b ai l i n a c ap i tal ca se at $750,0 00. Ex p arte Chavfull , 945 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex . A pp .—S an A n toni o 19 97 , no pet.). Ul

ti mate l y , the a pp rop riate
amou nt of ba il m

ust be de t er mined on a case-by -case bas is . Other opini

ons are i nstructive , but there is n o am oun t o f b ail that is per se exce ssi

ve. We acknowl edge, however, that $700,00 0 is a pa r t icu lar ly hig h ba il, ev en fo ra f ir st de gr ee fe lo ny. Chachere’s bro t her t est ifi

ed t hat t he f

am i l y coul d n ot af f ord b ai l i n th e p re se n t am oun t. The record is v

i rtual l y si l en t, howev er, about Chachere’ s personal abil ity to make bail. Chachere’s brothertestifi

ed that Chache

re has no mo ney “tha t I a m awar e o f.” C hache re was said t o be
em ploy ed, but hi s sal

ary wa s not discl

osed. It was sai

d that Chach

ere does not o wn

a ho me, bu t t he
na ture of his r eside nce, its c os t , a nd i ts p rec i se l oca ti on are not in ev

ide nce. There was

testim ony tha t Chach ere do es no t ow n a ca r, but he t ra veled by ca r t o mee t ings in Schu lenbur g and Aust in, and he7

r eg ula r ly exch anged custody of

hi s daughter wi

th hi s f ormer wife in San Ant onio . T he r eco rd is silent wi th re spe ct t o financial as set s t hat Chac her e might or might no t o wn. There i s no evi dence that Ch ac he r e h as at t emp t ed t o bo r r o w mo ne y t o mak e b ail.
Sa fety of vi ct im. A grand j ury h

as determi

ned that t he r e is cr ed ible ev

i den ce th at Ch ach er e s oug

h t to hi re a kil le r to murder h

is form er wi f e. Ma rla Ch ach er e te sti

f i ed to “ ph y si ca l con f ron tati on s” wi th Chach ere dur ing t he ir m

arriage. She al so test if

ie d that she f

ears appel

la nt mi ght harm her or her daughter based on wh

at she h as been to ld b y the poli ce regardin

g the alle ged off

ense. On the other han d, Ch ach er e p oi

n ts o ut th at th e c our t i s a uth ori ze d to impose re aso nable bo nd co ndit ions fo r t he purpo se of v

i cti m or com m uni ty s af ety . See Tex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . art. 1 7.40 (West Supp. 2002)
. Other facto rs. The

re wastesti

mony that Ch ach ere is a lo ng t ime re si

den t of Hou sto n , that h

i s p ar en ts and a sist er also live ther e, and t hat he ha s cu stody of a son. The re wa s al so testi mony that Ch ach ere hashe ld t he sa me jo b fo rfift ee n yea r s, bu t ne it he rt he na t ur e o f t his e mplo yment no rt he na me o f his
em ploy er is in evi dence. There is no evi

dence that

Chachere has a

previous crim

in al record o r that he has ev er fai le d t o co mply wit h t he c o ndit io ns o f a bond. Marla Chach

ere testifi ed that he compl

ie d wit h c o ur t o r de r s w it h r es pe ct t o ch ildsu pp o r t an d c us t o dy.8 Balanc ingall the r elevant facts b efore us, we concl ude that t he di strict court abused it s discretion by

refusi ng to set bail

at less than $700,000. The cour t’s o rd er deny ing r elie f is reversed, and C

hach ere’s b ai l i

s ordered reduced to $250,000.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Reversed a

nd Rem anded; Bail Ordered Set File d: January

25, 2002 Do No t Publis

h