COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00284-CR

NO. 02-11-00285-CR

NO. 02-11-00286-CR

NO. 02-11-00287-CR

NO. 02-11-00288-CR

EX PARTE STEVEN BENZER

----------

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Steven Benzer appeals the trial court’s order denying his pretrial 

applications for writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction of bail pending trial. 

We will affirm.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

II. BACKGROUND

Benzer is a self-employed ―broadcast technician‖ who lives in Carrollton 

with his wife and two children. Before being incarcerated, Benzer frequented the 

streets of his neighborhood in order to observe and report what he perceived to 

be criminal activity, including ordinance code violations. Over the years, Benzer 

has reported ―many complaints‖ of alleged ordinance violations that occurred 

within his neighborhood.

2 According to his wife, at some point, Benzer was 

advised by ―several departments within‖ the City of Carrollton to document the 

alleged violations using either an audio or videotaping device. Benzer did so and 

began videotaping anything that he perceived to be a criminal violation.

Much of Benzer’s attention appeared to be focused on the Swadley 

residence. Diana Swadley and her two children, Rachel and Jonathan, live in a 

house that shares an alley with the Benzer residence.

3 Diana agreed that ―it 

would be putting it mildly to say that there has been an ongoing problem with 

[Benzer] and the Swadley family.‖4

 

2One investigator conservatively estimated that Benzer called 9-1-1 ―easily 

225‖ times over the course of a few months during 2009. Benzer’s complaints 

were so numerous that he apparently acquired quite a reputation; Benzer’s wife, 

Denise, claimed that one Carrollton police officer and three Carrollton dispatch 

officers were fired for egging his house.

3An investigator appointed to assist Benzer’s trial attorney testified that she 

had not seen the Swadleys at their residence for over two weeks.

4Benzer’s wife admitted that Benzer had been videotaping the Swadleys 

up to thirty minutes every single day.
3

In October 2009, Benzer was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, to-wit: a knife, alleged to have been committed in July 2009 against 

Cameron Walter, a friend of Jonathan Swadley who also lives in the same 

neighborhood as Benzer. Benzer posted the $75,000 bond when he was 

charged and was released.

On November 12, 2009, Benzer was arrested for allegedly stalking Diana

Swadley and her family while they were in their yard. Benzer posted the $75,000 

bond and was released on November 13, 2009.

Almost immediately thereafter, authorities arrested Benzer a third time on 

November 18, 2009, for allegedly (1) committing another stalking offense against 

Diana Swadley (leaving a message on her telephone stating something to the 

effect of ―things weren’t over yet between him and her‖) and (2) violating a 

protective order that had been entered by a magistrate. Bail was originally set at 

$1,000,000 for each of these offenses, but the trial court later reduced the bail to 

$125,000 for each offense. Benzer posted bonds for each offense on or about 

April 15, 2010, and was released. At some point, the trial court raised the bail in 

the aggravated assault and the first stalking causes from $75,000 each to 

$125,000 each. Benzer was also able to post bonds for these offenses on April 

15, 2010.

Approximately one month later, in May 2010, Benzer was arrested a fourth 

time for allegedly retaliating against Cameron Walter, the complainant in the 

aggravated assault cause, by verbally threatening him and blocking his vehicle. 
4

The trial court set bail at $25,000 for this offense, but it revoked the bail in each

of the other causes (all had been set at $125,000) because Benzer missed a 

hearing, but it later reinstated the bail for each cause at $200,000. Benzer was 

unable to post four $200,000 bonds and the $25,000 bond, and he filed motions 

to reduce the bonds and this habeas corpus action, all of which were denied by 

the trial court.

III. BAIL REDUCTION

In his only issue, Benzer argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 

not reducing what he contends are excessive and unconstitutionally oppressive

bail amounts that were set in each of the causes pending in the trial court. He 

contends that the bail is not only calculated to ensure his continued detention, 

but that he will be prevented from receiving effective assistance of counsel at trial 

due to the ―inherent complexities of untangling numerous hours of video.‖

Benzer prays that we lower the total amount of bail to an amount that will assure 

his presence at trial.

We review the trial court’s denial of a bond-reduction request for an abuse 

of discretion. See Ex parte Spaulding, 612 S.W.2d 509, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1981); Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849–50 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1981); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15 (West 2005) (giving trial 

court discretion to set bail amount). To determine whether a trial court abused its 

discretion, we must decide whether the trial court acted without reference to any 

guiding rules or principles; in other words, we must decide whether the act was 
5

arbitrary or unreasonable. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh’g). Merely because a trial court may decide a 

matter within its discretion in a different manner than an appellate court would in 

a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion has 

occurred. Id.

In general, all persons accused of noncapital crimes have the right to bail 

pending trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.07 (West 2005). But excessive 

bail is prohibited by both the federal and state constitutions. See U.S. Const. 

amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. The primary purpose of an appearance 

bond is to secure the defendant’s presence in court. Ex parte Vance, 608 

S.W.2d 681, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). The code of criminal 

procedure requires trial courts to consider the following criteria in setting bail:

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable 

assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make 

it an instrument of oppression.

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under 

which it was committed are to be considered.

4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may 

be taken upon this point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and 

the community shall be considered.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15. Although an accused’s ability or inability 

to make bail is considered, ability to make bail alone, even indigency, does not 
6

control the amount of bail. Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ex parte Milburn, 8 S.W.3d 422, 427 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (―The amount of bail appellant can post or have posted, 

however, is not determinative of the amount that should be set, any more than 

any one of the other factors to be considered is determinative of a reasonable 

amount to be set.‖).

Other factors that the court of criminal appeals has directed courts to 

consider include the accused’s work record; the accused’s family ties; the 

accused’s length of residency; the accused’s prior criminal record, if any; the 

existence of outstanding bonds, if any; aggravating circumstances alleged to 

have been involved in the charged offense; and the range of punishment for the 

charged offense. Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849–50; see Ex parte Vasquez, 558 

S.W.2d 477, 479–80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (―And when considering the nature 

of the offense in setting bail, the punishment permitted by law may be 

considered.‖); Ex parte Scott, 122 S.W.3d 866, 869 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2003, no pet.) (―When the nature of the offense is serious and involves 

aggravating factors, a lengthy prison sentence following trial is probable.‖). An 

accused seeking reduction of bail has the burden of demonstrating that the bail is 

excessive. Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1980).

Benzer has been indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, 

two stalking offenses, violating a protective order, and retaliation. See Tex. 
7

Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a)(2), 36.06(a)(1) (West 2011), 25.07, 42.072(a)(1)(A) 

(West Supp. 2011). The aggravated assault allegation contains two 

enhancement paragraphs, potentially exposing Benzer to a punishment range of 

life in prison or twenty-five to ninety-nine years’ confinement if convicted. See id.

§ 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2011). The earlier stalking allegation also contains two 

enhancement paragraphs, potentially exposing Benzer to a higher range of 

punishment if convicted. Each of the remaining three offenses expose Benzer to 

up to ten years’ confinement if convicted. See id. § 12.34(a) (West 2011). The 

enhancement paragraphs contained in both the aggravated assault and the 

stalking offenses allege that Benzer was convicted of aggravated assault against 

a peace officer in 1988 and retaliation in 1999, both felonies.

Benzer downplays the circumstances surrounding each of the offenses, 

contending that they are ―not based on credible facts‖ and even suggesting that 

they were fabricated by his neighbors and by employees of the City of Carrollton. 

But the aggravated assault offense does allege that Benzer used or exhibited a

deadly weapon, a knife; and each of the offenses appear to relate to some

ongoing conflict or dispute involving Benzer and one or more individuals who live 

in the same neighborhood as him.

5

 The circumstances of the offenses are not

frivolous but, rather, quite serious.

 

5Benzer and Diana Swadley have been involved in civil litigation with each 

other.
8

The record shows that after his arrest for aggravated assault, Benzer was 

arrested three more times for additional offenses alleged to have been committed 

against individuals who live in his neighborhood. Thus, each time Benzer posted 

bail, he reoffended; and not against some random person, but against a member 

of his neighborhood. The trial court even indicated its concern for the safety of 

the complainants when in regard to Benzer’s reoffending, it commented that ―it’s 

obvious that it’s a continuing course of action.‖ One police officer opined that 

Benzer posed a danger to the community; Diana Swadley indicated that it 

―scares [her] to death‖ if Benzer were to make bail; and Alexandra Shanafelt,

another neighbor of Benzer who lives in a house that shares an alley with 

Benzer’s residence, described Benzer as ―scary‖ and ―crazy.‖6

Benzer has lived in Dallas or Carrollton the entire time that his wife, 

Denise, has known him—almost nineteen years. Denise, who is unemployed, 

testified that she could not afford to post bonds in the amounts currently set by 

the trial court, and Benzer’s mother testified that her family had no resources to 

help Benzer post the bonds. At an earlier hearing, Denise said that she and 

Benzer owned a home, had $2700 in a checking account, had no savings 

account, owned several old vehicles, and had no family members who could 

provide any financial assistance. Benzer initially had retained counsel, but the 

trial court later found Benzer indigent and appointed counsel to represent him.

 

6Shanafelt testified that when she was eighteen years old, Benzer flashed 

a flashlight into her bedroom at 3:00 a.m.
9

Michael Vanhooser and Ivan Hill testified that they have known Benzer for 

approximately twenty years, that they had employed him in the past, and that 

they would hire him if he was released from jail. Stephen Howen, an attorney 

who represented Benzer in several civil matters, had no doubt that Benzer would 

appear for trial if able to post the bonds. Cami Sandifer, an investigator 

appointed to assist defense counsel, testified that the five pending cases are 

interconnected and that Benzer would be of great assistance to defense counsel 

if Benzer could post the bonds.

Considering all of the appropriate criteria set out above, we cannot 

conclude that the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, and therefore 

abused its discretion, by refusing to lower the bail amounts in Benzer’s five 

pending causes. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15; Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 

at 849–50. Therefore, we overrule Benzer’s sole issue.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Benzer’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s order 

denying habeas corpus relief.

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 2, 2012