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

NO. 03-0 9 -00 037 -CR
Ex pa r te And y J ona s Be ll

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 0562 2A , HO NORAB LE F ANCY H . JEZ EK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Andy J onas B ell is confined while awa iting trial on char g es of the third- deg ree felony offe nse of injury to a

child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a )(3) , (f) (West Supp. 2008). Bond
wa s o ri gi n al l y

s etat $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0
. Be l l fi l edan ap p l i ca t i o nfo r w ri to f h ab ea s c o r p u s s ee k i n g a reduc tion in the bond amount. Following an evidentiar y hear ing in w hich B ell’s counse l reque sted that b o n d b e r e d

u c e d to $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in s te a d r e d u c e d B e ll ’ s b o n d to $ 1 0 0 , 000. I n a single issue on appea l, Be ll asserts that the bond amount re mains excessively high. We will affirm the district court’s or der.
Stand ard and s cope of review

The setting of bail is committed to the s o u n d discretion of the trial court, but the exercise of

that discretion is g overne d by the constitution and by

statute. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. a

rt. 17.15 (West 2005). I n setting ba il, a balanc e must be struck betwee n the def endant’ s pr e su mpt ion

of inn oc e nc e and

the State ’s int e re st i n a ssu ri ngthe de fe nd ant’ s a

pp e ara nc e a t tr ial. Ex pa rteBe ar

d , 92 S.W .3d 566, 573 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2002, pet. ref ’d). Both the fede ral and2

state constit utions prohibit excessive bail. See U. S. Co ns t. a me nd . V I I I ; T e x. Con st. art . I , § 13 . B a il is ex cessive if

it is “set in an amount g reater than is re asonably nece ssary

to satisfy the g overnme nt’s leg itimate interests.” Be ar d , 9 2 S. W.3 d at 57 3. I n a dd iti on to t he c on sti tut ion a l pr oh ibi tio n a g a ins t
e xce ssi ve ba il, the Te xas L e g isl a tur e ha s im po se d th e fo llo wi ngstatut or y re qu ir e me nts :
1. The ba il shall be sufficiently hi gh t o gi ve re asonable assura nce that the undertaking w ill be complied with. 2. The powe r to requir e bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression. 3. The nature of the o ff en s e an d t h e ci rc u m s t an ce s under whic h it was committed are to be consider ed. 4. Th e a

bil ity to make ba il is t o b e re g ard e d, and pr oo f m ay

be take n up on

thi s po int
. 5. Th e futur e sa fe ty of a vic tim of the a lle g e d of fe ns e and the c omm

un ity sh a ll be conside red.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 17.15.

I n setting the amount of bail, the trial co u rt may also g ive consider ation to such fac tors as: (1) the acc used’s wor k rec ord; (2) the acc used’s fa mil y an d co mmunity

ties; (3) the
acc used’s leng th of reside ncy ; (4 ) t he ac cused’ s prior cr iminal recor d; (5) the a ccuse d’s
c o n f o r m i t y w i t h p r e v i o u s b o n d c o n d i t i o n s ; ( 6 ) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f o t h e r o u t s t an d i n g b o n d s , i f

a n y; and (7) ag g ravating c ircumstance s alleg ed to have been involved in the c harg ed off ense. See Ma ldo na do v . S

tat e , 999 S.W .2d 91, 93 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, pet. ref ’d) ( citing Ex parte Rubac , 6 11 S.W. 2d 84 8, 84 9- 50 (Tex
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 )) ; see also Ex parte W illiams , 619 S.W .2d 180, 183 (Tex. Crim. App
. 1 9 8 1 ) (r educing amount of bail when e vidence showed3

applicant “ has no prior c riminal rec ord, is marrie d, has bee n regularly g ainfully employ ed, is and ha s been near ly all his life
. . . a resident of Travis County , as are many of his c lose kin, and expressed a willingne ss to comply

with whateve r re asonable conditions attending his rele ase on bail the cour t mig ht i mpo se in lig ht of the natur e of the of fe ns e s with

wh ic h h e sta

nd s c ha rg e d. ” ); Ex

pa rteGe ntr

y , 615 S.W .2d 228, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (re ducing bail amount when e vidence showed that
a pp lic ant h a d in c e nti ve to r e ma in in area be c a us e of he r c on tin

uin g e ff or ts t o r e g a in a

nd re ta in custody of her f

our minor childre n); Ex

pa rtePa ris h , 598 S.W .2d 872, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (re ducing bail amount when e vidence showed, among oth er t h i n gs, applicant’s “ strong and longsta nding ties to the c ommunity ,” including that applicant a nd his wife had “ been ma

rried se ven y ear s and have lived in the same house, upon which they make mortg ag e pay

ments, for six y ear s”; that a pp lic ant’ s p are nts a

nd mot he r- in- law l ive d in

the Ho us to n area; an d th a t a pp lic ant a nd his
w i f e h a d a f i v e - y e ar - o l d

s o na t t e n d i n g s c h o o l i nH ou sto n) ; E x parte Keller , 595 S.W .2d 531, 533 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ) ( re du c ingba il amo un t w he n e vid e nc e sh ow e d th a t a pp lic ant “ ha d li ve d in Houston all her life ”; had two tee nag e daug hters; wa s em p loy ed; “a nd most im portantly , that she
succe ssfully

serve d a five y ear

probate d sent ence without any sug g estion of eve r fa iling to re port
a s d ir e c te d, an e xpe ri e nc e tha t is ent it led to we ig ht a s r e g ard s th e lik e lih oo d o f h e r r e po rt ingto court a s require d”).

We r e vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin gon a re qu e st t o r e du c e ba il und er an a bu se of discre tion standard. See R ubac , 6 11 S.W. 2d a t 85 0; Cle mo ns v . S

tat e , 220 S.W
. 3 d 1 7 6 , 178 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.) (per curiam). As such, we will not di s t u rb t he trial c ourt’s ruling if it was within the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment. Clemons , 220 S.W .3d at 178.4 I n a habe as ca se, th e writ applicant be ars the bur den of pr oving f acts that would entitle him to relief and ensur ing that a suffic ient rec ord is prese nted to show err or re quiring
reve rsal. See E

x parte Kimes , 872 S.W .2d 700, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The burden of proof is upon an applica

nt who claims bail is excessive, see Rubac , 6 11 S.W. 2d a t 84 9; Mi lne r v . S

tat e , 263 S.W .3d 146, 148 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2006, no pet.) , and we will not reduce the trial co u rt ’s bail amount unless the applica nt has satisfied this burden. Se e Ge ntr y , 615 S.W .2d at 231 (red u cing bail amount afte r re viewing court wa s “complete ly satisfied that petitioner dis c ha rg e d h e r b ur de n of sh ow ing he r e nti tle me nt” to b a il r e du c tio n) ; Ex parte W elch , 729 S.W .2d 306, 310 (Tex. A

pp.—Dallas 1987, no pe t.) (re fusing to reduc e bail amount whe n revie wing court found, af ter c onsidering “all of the evidenc e and f actors releva

nt to determining the amount of bo nd ,” that “ a

pp lic ant h a s f

a ile d to satis fy

his bu rd e n o f s ho wi ngthat th e tr ia l cou rt a bu se d it s discretion in re fusing to lower a pplicant’s bond”) . Wit h these considerations in m ind, we proc eed to r e vie w the e vid e nc e in t his c a se in l ig ht o f t

he a bo ve fa c tor s. Statutory factor s Suf fic ie nt b ail

to a ssu re ap pe aranc ebut

not op pr ess The fir st two statutory

fac tors are interre lated. The primary purpose of

an appe ara

nce bond is to secure the pre sence of the a ccuse d at trial on the off ense c harg ed. Ex parte R o driguez , 595 S.W .2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, the amount of ba il must be hig h enoug h to give
rea sonable assura

nce that the acc used will a ppear as require d. Ex

pa rteCha rle

swo rth , 600 S.W .2d 31 6, 31 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ). Ho we ve r, wh ile ba il sho uld be su ff ic ie ntl y hig h to g ive re a so na

ble
assura nce that the acc used will appea r, the power

to require bail should not be used as a n instrument5

of oppre ssion. Ex parte I vey , 594 S
. W
. 2 d 9 8 , 9 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). This occurs w hen the trial court sets bail at an amount “for the express purpose of

forc ing a ppellant to rema in incarc erated” pending trial or appe al. Se e Ex pa rteHa rri

s , 733 S.W .2d 712, 714 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no pet.) (pe r cur iam). In Ha rri s , f or e xamp le , a ft e r t

he de fe nd ant h a d b e e n c on vic te d o f t he of fe ns e of dr ivi ngwh ile int oxic a te d, the tr ia l c ourt se t ba il at $5 0, 00 0. I n re fu sin g to re du c e the ba il amou nt, the trial cour

t stated,
I t h i n k b e c a u s e o f h i s b a d r e c o r d , I j u s t w o u l dn ’ t f e e l r i g h t i n l o w e r i n g t h e b o n d an y. I ’d hate to p ut t

hat up on the c iti zen s of Tr a vis County . M ay be the Court

of Ap pe a ls will, but at least that won’t be on my back. Ijus t f e e l a du ty to the c omm

un ity to pr ote c t the c omm un ity . I f h e ’d

g e t out and

kil l someone, I ’d never g et over it. I ’d rathe r see him in jail than to see someone ’s life taken, so I ’m g oing to de ny the writ and le t y ou g o on up to the Court of Appea ls and see w hat they

do about it. Ijust wouldn’t feel rig ht with this horrible r ecor d.
Id . On appe al, this Court found that the above comment demonst rate d that the di strict court a bused its dis c re tio n in

se tti ngthe a mou

nt o f b a il:
I t is clear that the district court’s re fusal to re duce ba il was not based on a de te rm inatio n tha t $50, 00 0 ba il is nec e ssa ry to as sure a

pp e lla nt’ s p re se nc e sh ou ld h is conviction be a ffirme d, nor wa s it based on a f inding that a

ppellant had not made an adequate ef

fort to make ba il in the amount set. . . . Rather, the district c ourt elec ted to se t ba il, but in a

n amount calc ulated to be bey ond appellant’ s means and to a ssure appellant’ s continued inca rce ration. The district c ourt, by so doing, use d bail as an instrument of oppression in violation of the constitution and statutes of this State.
Id
. H e r e , b y

c o n tr a s t, th e r e c o r d

d e mo n s tr a te s th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n te mp late d th at Be ll could actually

make ba il. I n reduc ing the amount from $300,000 to $100,000, the district cour tWhe n th e State a tte mpt e d to e lic it t e sti mony a bo ut the se ri ou sn e ss of M. B .’ s inj ur ie s, B e ll 1 wo uld of te n o bje c t to “ g e tti ngint o th e fa c ts o f t he c a se .” Th e dis tr ic t c ourt su sta ine d th e ob

je c tio ns . Be ll testified that M.B. is his only biologica l child, from a prior re lationship. The other two 2 children a re his wife ’s biologic al childre n from a pr ior relationship. 6 e xpla ine d, “ Ia m g oin g to r e du c e the bon d to $1 00 ,0 00 c on dit ion e d o n n o c on ta c t w ithany c hil d under the ag e of 18 y ear s old. That would include the victim, a nd also conditioned on the def endant
rema ining in B ell County .” Nothing in this statement or any thing else in the rec ord sug g ests that the district court, in reduc ing the amount of bail t o $100,000, was attempting to assure Be ll’s continued incar cer ation. Se e Mi lne r v . S tat e , 263 S.W .3d 146, 149 (Tex. A p p .—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2006,
no pe t.) ; Ex

pa rteDa v is , 14 7 S.W. 3d 54 6, 54 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 4, no pe t.) ; Ex pa rteMi lbu rn , 8 S.W .3d 422, 426 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.). Nature of offe nse The third fa ctor unde r ar ticle 17.15 is the natur e of the offe nse for which the defe ndant is char g ed and the circ umstances unde r which it wa s committed
. Be ll is being c harg ed wi th the of

fe ns e of inj ur

y to a ch ild
. Th e c omp la int a lle g e s tha t on or ab ou t Apr il 2 4, 20 08 , B e ll “ did then and ther e int en t i o n al l y and knowing ly cause bodily

injury to [ M.B.], a child y oung er tha n 15 y ear s of ag e, by

striking he r about the body and buttocks with his hand and striking her about the body and buttocks with a belt.” Dur ing the evidentiar y hear ing, the district court did not allow much testimony about t h e ci rc u m stance s under whic h the offe nse wa s alleg edly committed. Howeve r,

1 Be ll testified that, as a result of t his case , Child P rotec tive Service s (CPS ) bec ame involved a nd took M. B . a nd B e ll’ s tw o o the r c hil dr e n a wa y fr om h im. Ad dit ion a lly , on cr os s- e xami natio n, the State

2
was a ble to elicit testimony

about the fa ct that M.B., who was five y ear s old at the time of the alleg ed7

offe nse, wa s taken to a hospital in Killeen and later “life-f lighted” to a hospi tal in San Antonio for trea tmen t o f

h e r in ju r ie s . T h e St a te a ls o e li c it e d te s ti mo n y

f r o m t h e o f f ic e r w h o inv e s ti g a te d

the off ens e, S ergeant Re ese D avi s o f t he K il lee n P ol ice Dep art men t, th at h e bel iev ed th e in ju ri es M .B. sustained i n this case wer e serious and that, at the time of the hea ring —approximately

nine months afte r the incide nt—M.B. wa s still rec eiving treatment f or her injuries. Thus, the rec ord ref lects that this was a ser ious offense
.

I n c la imi ngtha

t ba il i n th is c a se wa s e xce ssi ve , B e ll c ite s to thr e e c a se s in wh ic h b a il
wa s se t a t le ss tha

n $10 0, 00 0 for fe lony of

fe ns e s th a t B e ll c on sid e rs “ mor e se ri ou s” tha n th e of fe ns e for wh i ch h e wa s char g ed. Se e Ex pa rteGa rc ia , 1 00 S.W. 3d 24 3, 24 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 2001, no pet.) (a ffirming trial court’ s setting of bail at $50,000 for second-de g ree felony offe nse of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d) ; Ex pa rteSa bu r- Sm ith , 73 S.W .3d 436, 441 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (reduc ing bail amount from $150,000 to $30,000 for sec ond-deg ree felony offe nse of
se xua l a ssa

ult ); Ex parte Park

er , 26 S.W .3d 711, 713 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) ( aff irming trial court’ s setting of

bail at $50,000 for first-deg ree felony offe nse of ag g ravated sexual assault). Ho we ve r, a s B e ll a c kn ow le dg e s, “ ‘c a se law i s o f rel ati ve ly lit tle va lue in a dd

re ssi ngthe ult imate qu e sti on of the a

pp ro pr ia te a mou

nt o f b a il i n a

pa rt ic ula r c a se ’ b e c a

us e a pp e llate de c isi on s o n b a il matters ar e often brief and avoid extended discussions, and because the ‘cases are so individualized that g ener ali z at i on from re sults reac hed in others is diffic ult.’” Be ar d , 92 S.W .3d at 571 (c iting 41 Geor g e E. Dix & Robert O. D awson, Texas Practice : Criminal Practice and Procedure § 16.51For example, in Ex

pa rteGa rc ia , the e vid e nc e sh ow e d tha t the de fe nd ant co uld sta y wi th 3 his adoptive fathe r and brother if he was re lease d on bail, that he had a history of depr ession re qu ir ingme dic a tio n a

nd ho sp ita lizatio n, and that he ha d b e e n s ub je c te d to ph y sic a l a tta c ks wh ile in jail. 100 S.W .3d 243, 246 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2001, no pe t.). I n Ex pa rteSa bu r- Sm ith , a sexual-assault case involving an adult complainant, there was disputed evide nce a bout whether

the complainant had c onsented to the a lleg ed off ense, a nd there wa s al s o ev i d ence prese nted that the defe ndant had lived in the co m m u n i t y fo r three y ear s and had “ extensive family ties to the are a.” 73 S
. W
. 3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 0-41 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). In Ex parte Park er , the ap p e a ls c o u rt a f

f ir me d th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s r e d

u c ti o no f b a il in ana mo un t l e s s th anth e d e f e n dant reque sted beca

use t he evidence showed t hat t he defenda nt had attempted to flee to L ouisiana whe n he be c a me awa

re of the a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t hi m, a nd that th e de fe nd ant h a d a

juv e nil e his tor

y , a s w e ll as fa mily and job pr ospects, in that state. 26 S.W .3d 711, 712-13 (Te x . App.—Waco 2000, no pet.)
. 8 (2 d ed. 2001 )) . B e c a

us e of sig nif ic ant f a c tua l di ff

e re nc e s b e tw e e n th e a

bo ve c a se s a

nd the c a se befor e us, we do not find the cited c ases to be pe rsuasive he re. 3

Howeve r, that is not to say that case law is unhelpful i n re v i ew ing the amount of bail set in a par

ti cu l ar ca s e. I n fac t, courts sometimes compar e bail amounts in ca ses involving offe nses of the same deg ree . This is beca use such offe nses car

ry the same punishment rang e, which is a proper

consideration in determining the nature of the off ense. Se e Cha rle

swo rth , 600 S.W .2d
a t 31 7; Ex parte Vasque

z , 5 58 S.W. 2d

47 7, 48 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 77 ); Maldonado , 999 S.W .2d at 95. As alleg ed, the of fense in this case is a third-de g ree felony
. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.04(a) (3), (f)
. The punishment f or a third-deg ree felony is imprisonment fo r a n y t er m of not m o re than ten y ear s or less than two y ear s and, in addition, a fine not to excee d $10,000. Id
. § 12.34 (West 2003). Tex as cour ts have a pproved ba il amounts between $25,000 a nd $150,000 for third-de g ree felonies. See, e .g. , Ex pa rt e Du rst , 148 S.W .3d 496, 501 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (re ducing bail to $150,000 for eac h of three third-deg ree felony char g es); Ex parte McCullough , 993 S.W .2d 836, 839 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) ( aff irmingSee also Ex parte Lopes , No. 05-04-00216- CR, 2004 Tex . App. L EXI S 3642, at *10 4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr
. 26, 2004, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (a ffirming trial court’ s de c isi on to s e t ba il at $1 00 ,0 00 fo r t hir d- de g re e fe lony

of fe ns e of sta lki ng ); E

x p a r t e Cosby , No s. 07 -0 2- 04 82 -C R & 07 -0 2- 04 83 -C R, 200 3 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S 71 91 , at *4 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo Aug . 21, 2003, no pet.) (not desig nated f or publication) ( aff

irming tria l court’s de cision to set total ba il at $1 00 ,0 00 fo r s e ve nte e n c ounts of thi rd- de g re e fe lony

of fe ns e of po sse ssi on

of c hil d po rn og ra ph y ); Ex parte Owe ns , No. 03-98- 0 0 3 1 5 -C R , 1998 Tex. App. L EXI S 7737, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 17, 1998, no pe t.) (not designate d for publication) (af firming trial court’ s de c isi on to se t ba il a t $7 5, 00 0 fo r of fe ns e of inj ur y to c hil d) ; Bu nn v . S

tat e , N o. 06 -9 8- 00 22 2- CR, 1998 Tex. App. L EXI S 7017, at *1, *8 (Tex. App.—Texarkan a No v. 10, 1998, no pet.) (not desig nated f

or publication) ( aff

irming trial court’s decision to se t ba il at $100,000 f or ea ch of tw o co un ts of

inj ur y to c hil d) ; Mo ra le

s v . S tat e , No. 09-96-221- CR, 1996 Tex . App. L EXI S 4281, at *1-2 (Tex. A

pp.—Be aumont Sept. 25, 1996, no pet.) (not desig nated f or publication) ( aff

irming trial court’ s ref

usal to reduc e $100,000 bond for offe nse of injury

to child). 9 trial court’ s decision to set total bail amount of $25,000 for three counts of i njury to elder ly person) ; Sm ith wic k

v . S tat e , 880 S.W
. 2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (r educing bail amount from $250,000 to $50,000 for of fense of injury

to child). The ba il amount set by the 4 dis tr ic t c ourt

in t his c a se , $ 10 0, 00 0, is c omp ara ble to t he ba ils a pp ro ve d in

the se sim ila

r c a se s.
Abi lit y to makeba il The abil ity

of an a ccuse d to post bail is a factor to be considere d, but the inability to make the bail set by the trial cour

t does not automatically

rende r the ba il ex cessive. See Ex parte Vance , 6 08 S.W. 2d 68 1, 68 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Maldonado , 999 S.W. 2d a t 96 . T his is true eve n if the ac cused is de termined to be indig ent. Cha rle swo rth , 600 S.W .2d at 317. I f the
a bil ity to m a ke ba il i n a

sp e c if ie d amou nt co ntr oll e d, the ro le of

the tr ia l c ourt

in s e tti ngba il w ou ld be unnec essar

y and the a ccuse d would be able to se t his own bail. Ex parte Hunt , 138 S.W .3d 503, 506 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2004, pet. ref’d)
.10 This fac tor will not favor bail reduc tion when the def endant make s vag ue re fer ence s to ina bility to ma

ke bail without de tailing his spe cific assets and financ ial resour ces. Coo le yv . S tat e , 232 S.W .3d 228, 236 (Tex. A p p . — Ho u s t o n [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Additionally , when the de fe nd ant h a s so ug ht a

re du c tio n in

the bai l a mou

nt, and the tr ia l c ourt

ha s r e du c e d th e a mou

nt, the de fe nd ant mus t us ua lly sh ow that he ha s ma de an e ff or t to fu rn ish ba il i n th e re du c e d amou nt. See E x parte Stem bridge , 47 2 S.W. 2d 15 5, 15 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 71 ); Sm ith v . S tat e , 161 S.W .3d 191, 19 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 05 , n o p e t.) ; Ex parte Holde n , 7 7 4 S. W. 2 d 957, 957 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n 1 98 9, no pe t.) ; see also Ex parte McD aniel , 25 8 S.W. 10 57 , 10 58 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1924) (de ny ing r equest to re duce ba il when there was “ no evidence o f any eff ort on the par

t of a pp e lla nt to p ro c ur e bo nd sme n, and no sh ow ingbe fo re the tr ia l c ourt that he wa s w ith ou t f

ri e nd s, neig hbors or kinsmen who we re w illing to g o upon such bond as wa s fix ed by the trial judg e”) ; Clemons , 220 S.W .3d at 179 (a ffirming trial court’ s bail amount when, a lthough de fenda nt “showed that he could not a ffor d bail as set in these ca ses, he did not provide a ny evidenc e showing that he ha d ma de any

e ff or ts t o s e c ur e a

bo nd him se lf . H is t e sti mony

sh ow e d th a t he ha d n ot atte mpt e d to fi nd ou t if any fr ie nd s or

fa mil y me mbe rs we re wi lli ngor a ble to h e lp h im s e c ur e a

bo nd .” ); but see Ex parte Sk

inner , 496 S.W .2d 633, 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (holding that, when re cord a lrea dy shows that applicant would be unable to make re duced ba il amount, applicant does not have to return to t ri a l c ourt and make “ ne w s ho wi ng” th a t he c ann ot a ff or d b a il amou

nt) ; Milner , 263 S.W .3d
a t 14 9- 50 (“ I f b oth

the de fe nd ant a

nd his fa mil y in di cat e a

fi na nc ia l in a bil ity to p ro c ur e a

sure ty b o n d , t h e c o u rt wi l l n o tre qu i re h i m ‘t o d o a u s el es s t h i n g. ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Ex pa rteDu e itt , 529 S.W .2d 531, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)).11 I n th is c a se , w he n a sk e d h owmuc h mo ne y he ha d ava ila

ble to pay on bo nd , Be ll te sti fi e d, “ Ap pr oximate ly 2, 00 0. ” On

c ro ss- e xaminat io n, B e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he ow ns no pr op e rt y in t he State of

Te xas o r a

ny ve hic le s. B e ll a lso te sti fi e d th a t he do e s n ot h a ve a ny savin g s a c c ount. He doe s, howeve r, h av e a ch ecking a ccount. When aske d how much money was in his chec king
a c c ount, B e ll t e sti fi e d, “ I ’m no t awa re a t th is t ime
. I wa s pa id, bu t I have n’ t be e n a ble to c he c k my
acc ount. I t should be around 700 r ight now.” Be ll further ac knowledg ed that he is still rece iving pay f r o m th e ar

my an d th a t h e g e ts p a id tw ic e a mo n th in th e a p p r o xim a te a mo unt of “700 and som ething ” per pay chec k “with all my allotments.” Acc ording to Be ll, other than his chec king
accou nt , he h a s n o o the r s ourc e of fu nd s and no sto c ks or

bo nd s. B e ll i s ma

rr ie d, bu t hi s w if

e is
c ur re ntl y in j a il. Be ll provided n o t es t i mony about his monthly

expenses. Howeve r, in a fina ncial qu e sti on na ir e fi le d with the dis tr ic t court fo r the purp os e of de te rm ini ngif

B e ll w a s e nti tle d to c ourt
appointed counse l, Be ll indicated that he pa y s child s u p p o rt i n t h e amount of $450.00 pe r month. B e ll a lso pr ov ide d n o te sti mony a bo ut w he the r h is mo th er (th e pe rs on wi th w ho m M. B . c ur

re ntl y
re sid e s) or oth e r me mbe rs of his or his wi fe ’s fa mil y wo uld be a

ble or wi lli ng to he lp se c ur e the ba il amount. Fur

ther, B ell has pre sented no e vidence that, afte r the district cour t reduc ed the ba il amount fr om $3 00 ,0 00 to $ 10 0, 00 0, he ha s ma de an e ff or t, e ith e r a lon e or

wi th t he he lp o f o the rs , to fu

rn ish ba il i n th e re du c e d amou

nt.
Fut ure safety of

the victim and th e comm uni ty Th e fi na l st a tut or

y fa c tor e xami ne s th e sa fe ty

of t he v ic timand

the c omm

un ity if the defe ndant wer e to be rele ased on ba il. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 1 7. 15 (5 ). Th e vic tim12

in this case is Be ll’s five-y ear -old daug hter, M.B . There is evidence su gges t i n g that this is not the fi rs t ti me M. B . h a s be e n inj ur e d. B e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he and his wi fe , w ho ha d li ve d to g e the r i n Te n n e s s e e f

o r a p e r io d o f ti me , w e r e p r e v io u s ly inv e s ti g a te d b y T e n n e s s e e CP S f o r a ll e g a ti o n s of ph y si cal abu se t o M .B., andhi s wife is curr ent ly in jai l as a res ul t of all egati on s t hat sh e in ju red M .B. Be ll also testified that Texas CP S has taken his three children awa y from him based on the c urre nt alleg ations. Acc ording to B ell, M.B. is cur rently living with B ell’s mother in Virg inia, and his two other c hildren ar e “in Copper as Cove with a foster pare nt.” Thus, the victim and the other children have be e n at le a st t e mpo ra ri ly re mov e d f

ro m B e ll’ s c us tod

y , makin g it le ss lik e ly that he c ou ld p os e a threat to their safety
. On t he other hand, as the S tate arg ued during the he aring , if Be ll were to flee to Virg inia while he wa s out on bail, he could obtain acc ess t o his daug hter through his mother. As for the safe ty of t he communit y , Be ll testified that he has no c riminal rec ord other tha n this case, a

nd he has ne ver te sted positive for drug s.
Other factor s Be ll, who i s twenty -seve n y ear s old, provided some evidenc e about his work re cord. Be ll testified that he has be en ser ving in the military

for e ight y ea rs and ha s been in the a rmy for one y ear . His rank is “E4 specialist.” Be ll testified t hat, whil e he has been in the army , he has not had any kind of leg al ac tion taken ag ainst him. As fo r f a mil y , c omm

un ity , a nd oth e r t ie s to the are a , Be ll tes tif ie d tha t his ma in t ie to Texas is t he ar

my . Be ll c urre ntly

lives “on post,” and he testified that he moved the re a round May of 2008. Prior to that, Be ll testified, he wa s living in a hotel in Killeen “ off of Hood Road.” Be ll testified that, if the district court we re to re duce bond in a n amount he could a ffor d, he intendedIt d o e s n o t a p p e ar t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f

t h e h e ar i n g , B e l l h a d

b e e nd i s c h ar g e d

f r o m t h e a r

m y. 5 When asked if he was “ still in the army as fa r as you know,” B ell testified, “Ye s, sir.” 13 to r e tur n to po st. B e ll a lso te sti fi e d th a t h e is ori ginal ly fr om M ary

land . B e ll’ s f

a the r l ive s in Tenne ssee. His mother lives in Virg inia, along with Be ll’s biologica l daug hter. Bell’s other two children, a s expl ained a bove, cur rently live in Copperas Cove with foster pare nts. Be ll’s wife is c ur re ntl y in j a il. B e ll a lso te sti fie d th a t he ha s n o o the r f a mil y me mbe rs wh o r e sid e in Be ll Count y . He doe s “have an aunt throug h my fathe r” that lives in Dallas. Howeve r, other than this aunt, Bell has no f

amily in Texas. Also, Bell pre sented n o ev i d en ce as to how long he has
r e s i d e d i nB e l l C o u n t y s p e c i f

i c a l l y o r i nT e x a s g e n e r a l l y. Of fi c e r D a vis , th e inv e sti g a tin g of fi c e r, te sti fi e d t hat Bell “h a s n o ti e s sp e c if ic a lly to this area” other than his job in the military . Davis also testifie d that, during his over 22 y ear s in l aw e nf

or c e me nt, he ha s w or

ke d w itharmy

de fe nd ants on

“many” oc c a sio ns , in c lud inga rm y defe ndants who we re c harg ed with this ty pe of c rime. In Davis’s e x perie nce, this ty pe of c rime ca

n af fe ct t h e c ar ee rs o f a rm y

d ef en d an t s . Ac co rd i n g t o Da v i s , “It c an u l t i m at el y l ea d t o t h ei r d i s ch ar ge from the m i l i t ary .” In Davis’s view , if that wer e to happe n in this case, it would remove Be ll’s pr ima ry tie to t he State of

Te xas. 5 Th e re is a lso so me e vid e nc e in the re c or d a bo ut B e ll’ s c omp lia

nc e wi th C PS w hil e the c ur re nt inv e sti g a tio n w a s o ng oin g . B e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he ha s a pp e are d in

c ourt “ a pp ro xima te ly four to five ” t i m es s i n ce CP S became involved in the case . Acc ording to Be ll, prior to being
arr ested, he was underg oing CPS service s, and he had “ac complished ever y thing” that CPS h ad
a sk e d o f h im.The State a sserts in its brief that “the appar ent violent nat u re of the attack” is a n 6 ag g ravating c ircumstance
. Howeve r, we cannot ve rify the alleg ed “violent nature of the attack” from the r ecord befor e us, bec ause the district court allowe d only limit ed evide nce at the hear ing a bout the under ly ing f

acts of the case . 14 As for the rema ining f

actor s, they are not implicate d in this ca se. B ell testified that he ha s no pr ior c ri min a l his tor y , and the re is no thi ng in t

he re c or d c on c e rn ingB e ll’ s c on fo rm ity wi th previous bond conditions or t he ex istence of other outst anding bonds. There is also nothing in the
rec ord about a

ny ag g ravating c ircumstance s alleg ed to have been involved in the char g ed off ense. 6
Summ ary As our discussion of the ab o v e factors sug g ests, there is evidence in the rec ord weig hing both f

or and a g ainst the di strict court’s decision to set bail at $100,000. On the one hand, Be ll presented e vidence that, beca use his child re n ar e n o t in his custody and he ha s no criminal his tor y , h e po se s li ttl e thr e a t to the sa fe ty of the vic tim , h is o the r c hil dr e n, or the c omm un ity . B e ll also prese nted evidenc e of a fairly stable work r ecor d—eig ht y ear s in the mili tary with no leg al
a c tio n ta ken again st h im. F ur

the r, B e ll p re se nte d e vid e nc e that he ha s a lr e a dy a pp e are d in Be ll Count y

courts on four or five occa sions in compliance with CPS r equire ments. Also, acc ording to Office r Davis, the criminal investigat i o n into the alleg ations ag ainst Be ll beg an in April 2008. B e ll w a s n ot a

rr e ste d unti l De c e mbe r. Thus , a s B e ll argue d duri ng the he ari ng , if he ha d w ante d to l e a v e t h e s t a t e t o e s c a

p e p r o s e c u t i o n , h e h a d

p l e n t y o f t i m e t o d o s o p r i o r

t o h i s ar r e s t
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, Be ll presented e vidence that he, acting alone, would be unable to pa y the bond amount. He te stified that he has no savings acc ount, stocks, bonds, or ot her source of funds, and only

approximately

$700 in his checkingacc ount. This is equivalent to the approximate amount of money he re ceive s fromI n bail-re duction hear ings, defenda nts sometimes prese nt evidenc e of what amount loca l 7 bai l bo nd sme n w ou ld b e wi lli ngto p ay and wh a t pe rc e nta g e or

pr e mium bo nd sme n ty

pic a lly char g e for their

service s. See, e .g. , Ex parte W alton , 583 S.W .2d 786, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Cle mo ns v . S

tat e , 220 S.W .3d 176, 178 (Tex. A p p . — E as t l and 2007, no pet.) (per curiam); Ex pa rteDa v is , 1 47 S.W. 3d 54 6, 55 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 20 04 , no pe t.) ; Ex parte Cuev as , 13 0 S. W.3 d 1 48 , 1 50 (T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 03 , n o p e t.) ; Ex pa rteHu lin , 3 1 S
. W
. 3 d 754, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2000, no pet.). B ell introduced no suc h evidenc e. 15 the ar my eac h two-we ek pay period. Acc ording to B ell, he has only “appr ox imately

2000” dollars
a va ila ble to p ay bo nd , w e ll b e low

the $1 00 ,0 00 bo nd

a mou nt s e t by the dis tr ic t c ourt
. On the other

hand, B ell prese nted no evidenc e that he ha s made a n eff ort to pay bond in the reduced amount by secur ing the help of others, such as hi s pare nts or a bail bondsman. And, 7
even a ssuming B ell could not obtain financ ial assistance from others, ag ain, the ability to pay is not controlling—if it wa s, the acc used could set his own ba il. See H unt , 1 38 S.W. 3d

a t 50 6. B e ll a lso pr e se nte d n o e vid e nc e tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

se t th e bo nd

a mou nt at $100 ,0 00 fo r the e xpre ss p ur po se of assuringhis continued incar cer ation.

Additionally , Be ll was ch ar g ed with the third-de g ree felony offe nse of injury

to a child, specific ally

his five-y ear -old daug hter. The rec ord re flec ts that t h e child’s injuries were
sever e enoug h that she had to be “life- flig hted” f rom one hospital to an o t h er, and that she wa s sti ll u nd e rg oin g tr e a tme nt f

or he r i nju ri e s a lmo st nin e mon ths a ft e r s he su sta ine d th e m. T he of fe ns e in this case ca

rries a possible punishment of betwee n two to ten y ear s’ imprisonment, and the bond amount set by

the district court wa s within the $25,000 to $150,000 rang e Te x as cour ts have his tor ic a lly

a pp ro ve d f or su c h f e lon ie s. Moreove r, there was c onsiderable evidenc e pre sented that B ell has fe w ties to the
are a . B e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he is o ri g ina lly fro m Mar y land . H e ow ns no pr op e rt y in T e xas. Pr ior

to16

living on post, Be ll was living in a hote l in Killeen. Be ll also testified t hat he lived for a pe riod of time in Tennesse e, and his fathe r cur rently lives in that state. Be ll’s mother and his biologic al da ug hte r l ive in V ir g ini a . H is o the r t wo c hil dr e n a

re no w l ivi ngwi th fo ste r pare nts
. Hi s w if e is i n ja il. He ha s no famil y in Te xas oth e r tha n ana un t in Da lla s. B y

B e ll’ s o wn

a dmi ssi on , h is m a in t ie to Texas is hi s job with the army , but, as Off icer Davis testified, the c rime of whic h Be ll is charg ed could ultimately

lead to his dischar g e fr om the mil i t ary . I f that we re to ha ppen, Davis testified, Be ll’s primary

tie to Texas would be g one. Also, B ell’s prior c ourt appe ara n ce s h appened bef

ore his a rre st. The district c ourt could have found that, now that Be ll ha d been arr ested a nd was fa cing felony char g es and possible pr ison time, his la ck of ties to T exas a nd his f amily ties in othe r states made him a

flig ht risk. Se e Hu lin , 31 S.W .3d at 761-62 (explaining that family ties and re sidency
are fac tors to consider in dete rmining if de fenda nt is a flight r isk). On the a bo ve re c or d, we fi nd

tha t B e ll f a ile d to satis fy

his burd e n to pr ov e that ba il in t his c a se wa s exce ssi ve , i.e ., that it wa s “se t in an amou nt g re a te r t

ha n is re a so na

bly ne c e ssa ry to satisfy the g overnme nt’s leg itimate inter ests.” Be ar d , 92 S.W .3d at 573. Acc ording ly , we c annot conclude that the district court abused i ts discretion in reducing the amount of bond fr om $300,000 to $100,000. We overrule B ell’s sole issue.17 We a ff ir m th e or de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

12, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh