Court Opinion

ID: 9394406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 11:07:30.616018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.824946
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued May 11, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-22-00903-CR
                                NO. 01-22-00904-CR
                             ———————————
                  EX PARTE MICHAEL D. SYKES, Appellant

                    On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Case No. 1791570, 1791571

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Michael D. Sykes appeals from the trial court’s order denying

habeas relief and holding him without bail pending trial. Appellant argues that the

trial court erred by denying bail after he violated bond conditions that had no relation

to the safety of the community.

      We affirm.
                                     Background

      The limited record shows that appellant was initially indicted for forgery and

bail set at $7,500, which was later increased to $50,000. Appellant was subsequently

indicted for capital murder and bail set at $200,000. After appellant violated bond

conditions, the State sought to revoke appellant’s bonds. At a bail review hearing

on January 6, 2022, the trial court considered the State’s motion to revoke bail and

review of bond violations.

January 6, 2022 Hearing

      At the start of the hearing, the State asked the trial court to take judicial notice

of both the capital murder and the forgery charge and offered appellant’s bond

conditions as State’s exhibit 1.

      Ronald Grant, an employee with Sentinel Vendor Services, testified that he

was familiar with GPS ankle monitoring records and that appellant received an ankle

monitor in April 2021 to comply with curfew requirements. Grant testified that

appellant had a curfew requiring him to be at home Monday through Friday, from

7:30 p.m. until 10 a.m.      On Saturdays and Sundays, appellant was on home

confinement. Grant testified that appellant’s GPS monitoring showed that he did not

comply with his curfew on multiple instances in December and one instance in

January. Grant denied hearing from appellant that his ankle monitor was not

working properly.

                                           2
      Jacqueline Castaneda, a pretrial officer for the electronic monitoring unit,

testified that appellant had violated pretrial conditions of electronic monitoring.

Castaneda agreed that from a review of the State’s various exhibits, appellant was

not in compliance with weekend home confinement requirements and that appellant

had multiple unapproved enters and unapproved exits or leaves.

      In his closing, appellant argued that unless his violations affected the safety

of the community, he could not be held at no bond.

      In its closing, the State argued that appellant was placed on four-year deferred

adjudication in 2018 for the forgery offense, but he was charged with capital murder

on November 1, 2019. After appellant was charged with capital murder, the State

filed a motion to adjudicate the forgery offense. The State reminded the trial court

that appellant had appeared before the court on October 25, 2021 for a bond violation

report which had an explanation, so the trial court continued supervision. Appellant

also appeared in November 2021 for another bond violation and appellant spent ten

days in custody. The State contended that at the November 2021 hearing, the trial

court told appellant that it would have zero tolerance and then within two weeks,

appellant tested positive for drugs. The State pointed out that appellant would leave

his home early and return home late, not complying with the curfew, and, on some

days, he did not even go home. The State argued that the community was not safe

and that appellant had shown that he could not be trusted to follow any rules.

                                          3
      At the end of hearing, the trial court stated that all the available resources had

been exhausted as it related to monitoring appellant on bail and that “Your bail will

be denied, raised to zero in each case.” 1

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

      On August 31, 2022, appellant filed a “Writ of Habeas Corpus to Reinstate

Bond,” alleging that his bond was revoked by the trial court for bond violations under

Article 1, section 11b of the Texas Constitution. Appellant contended that any bond

violations of curfew or drug testing did not warrant denial of bond because the

violations had “no relation to the safety of the community or any potential danger

that [appellant] may pose.”

December 5, 2022 Hearing

      On December 5, 2022, the trial court heard appellant’s writ application, and

admitted the January 6, 2022 hearing transcript and the application for writ of habeas

corpus into evidence. After the trial court admitted the exhibits, appellant rested,

stating he had no witnesses or testimony to present.

      In his closing, appellant asserted that the trial court previously revoked

appellant’s bond “based exclusively on violations of [appellant’s] electronic monitor

1
      The trial court also said that it was not considering anything as it related to the
      “positive possible test” that could have occurred on December 20, 2021. Testimony
      from the January 6, 2022 hearing indicated that appellant had tested positive for
      drugs twice.

                                             4
and the curfew that the Court had in place as bond conditions, while he was on

bond.” Appellant argued that “electronic monitor violations do not meet the criteria

of a threat to the community and that he is entitled to a bond based on the fact that

even if he was in violation of his electronic monitor, even if he was in violation of

his curfew, he was never accused of doing anything that was dangerous to the

community and the Court should not have found that he did anything that was

dangerous to the community that presented a threat to the community.”

      In its closing, the State clarified that appellant had been placed on a four-year

deferred adjudication for forgery on March 29, 2018 and that while on probation, he

was charged with capital murder on November 1, 2019, which then resulted in a

motion to adjudicate in the forgery case. The State further recalled that appellant

was not in compliance with his GPS conditions in October and November 2021. The

State informed the trial court that it had previously told the parties that appellant

would be held on zero tolerance. Despite the trial court’s warning, appellant

committed additional violations of GPS electronic monitoring, which resulted in the

January 6, 2022 hearing. The State argued that for someone accused of capital

murder with repeated bond violations, “it’s important that we know where that

person is at all times” and no other resources are “available to protect the community

because we don’t know where he is; and that presents a huge problem, especially

given that we know he has a history of not following the Court’s orders.”

                                          5
      At the end of the December 5, 2022 hearing, the trial court stated,

             [Appellant] violated the terms and conditions of the bond.
             And it was related to the safety because it had to deal with
             the time in which he had the curfew. He had a curfew,
             which was a part of the conditions of bail. He failed to
             honor the terms and conditions of bail. The Court will
             deny then the Writ as presented.

      The trial court signed an order denying appellant’s writ of habeas corpus and

certified appellant’s right of appeal.

                                 Standard of Review

      A trial court’s ruling on a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any

guiding rules or principles. Ex parte Hunt, 138 S.W.3d 503, 505 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). A reviewing court will not disturb a decision of the trial

court if that decision is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Ex parte Tata,

358 S.W.3d 392, 397 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. dism’d). We view

the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. See Ex parte McIntyre,

558 S.W.3d 295, 299 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d). We will uphold the

trial court’s ruling if it is correct under any theory of law. Id.

                                   Appellate Record

      When the trial court has denied relief to a habeas corpus applicant, the

applicant has the burden of presenting an appellate record sufficient to show that the
                                            6
trial court erred. Ex Parte Gutierrez, 987 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999,

pet. ref’d). In the absence of a complete record, an appellate court is not in a position

to overrule the trial court. Id.

       Here, appellant has not sustained his burden because the record lacks the

indictments, any orders setting bond and bond conditions, the State’s motion to

revoke bond, and any orders revoking bond. The record includes only the January

6 and December 5, 2022 hearing transcripts, appellant’s writ of habeas corpus

application, and the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal. In sum,

the limited record hinders this Court from determining whether the trial court abused

its discretion in denying appellant’s habeas application.

       Notwithstanding the limited record, appellant’s application argues that his

“alleged violations of failing a single drug test and missing curfew hours have no

relation to the safety of the community or any potential danger Applicant may pose.”

We disagree.

       Texas Constitution Article I, section 11b provides:

              Any person who is accused in this state of a felony or an offense
              involving family violence, who is released on bail pending trial,
              and whose bail is subsequently revoked or forfeited for a
              violation of a condition of release may be denied bail pending
              trial if a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a
              preponderance of the evidence at a subsequent hearing that the
              person violated a condition of release related to the safety of a
              victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.

TEX. CONST. art. I, § 11b.
                                           7
      Thus, under Article I, section 11b, a trial court may deny a defendant bail if a

defendant (1) is accused in Texas of a felony or an offense involving family violence,

(2) is released on bail pending trial, (3) has his bail subsequently revoked for

violating a condition of his release, and (4) is found to have violated a condition that

relates to the safety of the complainant or the safety of the community.2 Id.

      Contrary to appellant’s argument, Article I, Section 11b requires a showing

that the violated condition relates to safety; not that the violation itself endangered

another at the time it was committed. Id. Curfew, home confinement, and electronic

monitoring are recognized means of protecting the safety of the community while

an accused awaits trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 17.40(a) (permitting

imposition of “any reasonable condition of bond related to . . . the safety of the

community”), 17.43(a) (reasonable conditions may include home curfew and

electronic monitoring), 17.44 (allowing home confinement and electronic

2
      Ex parte McIntyre, 558 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d);
      see also Ex parte Vazquez, Nos. 05-13-00165-CR, 05-13-00166-CR, 2013 WL
      1760614, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not
      designated for publication) (noting Texas Constitution Article I, section 11b
      “governs situations in which bail, although initially granted, has been revoked
      because the defendant violated a condition of his release” and it allows “the
      subsequent denial of bail . . . [if] (1) the defendant is charged with a felony[ ] or (2)
      the defendant is charged with an offense involving family violence”); see generally
      Ex parte Shires, 508 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.)
      (looking at legislative history of section 11b and stating that “the legislature
      recognized that when an accused has demonstrated a reluctance to abide by
      reasonable conditions of bond, considerations of the safety of victims . . . and the
      safety of the community as a whole should be considered before releasing the
      defendant into the community again”).
                                              8
monitoring as bond condition). The limited record shows that, at the January 6, 2022

hearing, the trial court heard evidence that appellant had committed multiple

violations of curfew. Further, at the December 5, 2022 hearing, the trial court found

that appellant committed bond violations and that appellant’s curfew affected

community safety. Based on the evidence presented to the trial court, we cannot say

that the trial court abused its discretion in denying habeas relief.

                                      Conclusion
      We affirm the trial court’s order that denied appellant’s application for habeas

corpus relief.

                                                      Terry Adams
                                                      Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           9