Case Name: Ex Parte Jamell D. BROOKS
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2012-07-26
Citations: 376 S.W.3d 222
Docket Number: No. 02-12-00249-CR
Parties: Ex Parte Jamell D. BROOKS.
Judges: PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 376
Pages: 222–228

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Jamell D. BROOKS.
No. 02-12-00249-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
July 26, 2012.
Petition for Discretionary Review Refused Sept. 19, 2012.
Julia H. Bella, Office of the Public Defender, Wichita Falls, TX, for Appellant.
Maureen Shelton, District Attorney for Wichita County, Wichita Falls, TX, for State.
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice.
Appellant Jamell D. Brooks appeals from the trial court's denial of his request to reduce his pretrial bond from $750,000. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the defendant's presence at trial on the offense charged. Accordingly, bail should be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the defendant will appear at trial, but it should not operate as an instrument of oppression. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the bail, as set, is excessive.
Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the following criteria for establishing a defendant's bond:
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.
In addition to these factors, we find it instructive that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in determining whether an appeal bond set by the trial court was excessive, stated that the court should also weigh the following factors: (1) the accused's work record; (2) the accused's family ties; (3) the accused's length of residence; (4) the accused's prior criminal record, if any; (5) the accused's conformity with the conditions of any previous bond; (6) the existence of outstanding bonds, if any; and (7) aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense.
The State's version of the facts of the underlying offense is contained in State's Exhibit 1, the probable cause affidavit executed by Detective Allen Killingsworth that sets out the information he had regarding the alleged assault of Sergeant Brian Sheehan. Killingsworth stated that Sheehan had been on patrol and had responded to a complaint that someone had fired shots into the air at an apartment complex. When Sheehan arrived, he saw Appellant arguing with a woman. A bystander told Sheehan that Appellant had fired the shots. Appellant began walking away, and Sheehan saw a gun in Appellant's hand. Sheehan told Appellant to stop, but Appellant continued to walk and went into an apartment. Sheehan drew his duty weapon and followed him. Shee-han prevented Appellant's closing the door by pushing the door open and going into the apartment. Sheehan saw the gun still in Appellant's hand. Killingsworth stated that Sheehan saw Appellant start to raise the gun and that Sheehan raised his service revolver and fired at Appellant twice. At least one shot struck Appellant, injuring his liver. Appellant did not fire.
The record reflects that Appellant is thirty-two years old. At the time of his arrest for aggravated assault of a public servant (Sheehan), a noncapital first-degree felony, Appellant worked full-time for the Texas Department of Transportation, picking up trash on the side of the highway and painting lines when necessary. He earned $10.70 per hour. He had savings of $1,000 and two paychecks totaling about $700. He owned no real estate, no car, no motorcycle, and no other vehicle and had no credit cards, furniture, or jewelry that he could sell or borrow against. Neither he nor his family could come up with the $75,000 that the bail bond company said he would need in order to post the $750,000 bail bond. Appellant indicated that he could pay a bondsman $2,500 if the trial court would reduce his bail to $25,000.
Appellant has two prior misdemeanor convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and possession of marijuana, both in 2010. He testified that he had been released on bond in the DWI case and had appeared for all his court settings and for all his appointments with his attorney. He also testified that after he was convicted, he surrendered to the jail to serve his two-day sentence.
Appellant testified that if he is released on bail, he intends to rent a house through a person from whom he has rented in the past. The record reflects that Appellant has lived in Wichita Falls at least since April 2010, although it is unclear where he lived before then and where his family lives. The State presented no evidence that Appellant is a flight risk or that he has outstanding bonds or warrants.
Appellant has been continuously incarcerated since his September 10, 2011 arrest. Trial is specially set for November 26, 2012. Appellant is represented by a court-appointed attorney from the Wichita County Public Defender's Office.
Weighing the evidence in the record regarding both the statutory criteria we are to consider as well as the additional factors suggested in Rubac, and considering the conditions of bail that the trial court is empowered to impose to satisfy the goals of bail, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to reduce his pretrial bail.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to reduce bail and remand this case to the trial court to set a reasonable bail; to determine what conditions, if any, to impose; and to allow both the State and Appellant the opportunity to present any additional evidence or argument that the trial court deems appropriate to assist it in determining reasonable bail and conditions, if any.
GABRIEL, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
. Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
. Id.
. Id.
. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15 (West 2005).
. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.40 (West 2005).
. See Tex.R.App. P. 43.6.