Court Opinion

ID: 9952991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 08:14:17.874863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:34.340642
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                        No. 07-23-00436-CR

                              EX PARTE JESSE THOMPSON

                         On Appeal from the 137th District Court
                                Lubbock County, Texas
     Trial Court No. DC-2023-MC-0127, Honorable John B. Board, Sitting by Assignment

                                         March 20, 2024
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Jesse Thompson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his application

for writ of habeas corpus, which sought to have Appellant’s bail pending trial lowered. We

affirm the denial of the application.

                                          BACKGROUND

       Between May 30 and June 14, 2023, Appellant allegedly made various threats of

violence, including death threats, against his mother, 99th Judicial District Court Judge

Phillip Hays, law enforcement personnel, and the public.       His brother filed multiple

applications for emergency detention seeking to have Appellant taken into custody before
he harmed someone. On June 25, Appellant was arrested. He was subsequently

charged with the state jail felony offense of terroristic threat against a peace officer or

judge1 and Class A misdemeanor offense of terroristic threat against a family member.2

Bail was set at $150,000 for the felony offense and $50,000 for the misdemeanor.3

        On October 10, 2023, Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus

seeking a bail reduction. At the hearing on the motion, the State admitted evidence that

Appellant had made multiple threats of violence, including death threats, to both his

mother and Judge Hays as well as to the general public. The evidence also established

that Appellant continued to make these threats while he was being held awaiting trial.

Appellant admitted a letter from a friend that, if Appellant were to be released, he would

have a job and a place to live. Appellant did not, however, offer any evidence establishing

that he was unable to post the current bail or the amount of bail he could post. At the

close of the hearing, the trial court denied the application and determined that “the current

bond is not excessive . . . .”4

        From this ruling, Appellant timely appealed. His sole issue contends that the trial

court erred by denying his application for writ of habeas corpus and holding that bail was

not excessive.

        1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.07(c-1).

        2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.07(c)(1).

        3 There is no order in the clerk’s record setting bail in these amounts.The indictment in the felony
indicates that bail was “set by judge,” but does not expressly identify the amount. The complaint and
information in the misdemeanor indicate that bail was set at $50,000 for that case. Regardless, the parties
agree that these were the bail amounts that Appellant sought to have lowered.

        4 The trial court also added additional bail conditions by its ruling, but Appellant does not challenge

these conditions by this appeal.
                                                      2
                                            LAW

       We review the trial court’s ruling regarding bail under an abuse of discretion

standard. Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte McManus,

618 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2021, no pet.). A trial court abuses its

discretion in setting the amount or conditions of bail if it acts without reference to guiding

rules and principles. Ex parte McManus, 618 S.W.3d at 407. We will not disturb a

decision of the trial court that is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id.

       “The right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused’s giving adequate

assurance that he will stand for trial and submit to sentence if convicted.” Ex parte Durst,

148 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (op. on reh’g). In

determining the amount of bail to set, the trial court is guided by the following rules: (1)

the bail should 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 considered; (5)

the future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered;

(6) the defendant’s criminal history record shall be considered; and (7) the citizenship

status of the defendant shall be considered. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15; see

also Ex parte Walker, No. 07-22-00048-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4136, at *4–5 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo June 16, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Relevant facts to be considered in determining the amount of bail include the accused’s

work record; family and community ties; length of residency; previous criminal record;

conformity with the conditions of any previous bail; the existence of outstanding bails; any
                                              3
aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense; and the

range of punishment for the charged offense. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849–50

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). While the ability to make bail is a factor to be

considered in setting bail, ability alone does not control the amount of bail that is

appropriate. Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1980).

         Appellant bears the burden of proving that the bail set by the trial court is

excessive. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849; Ex parte McManus, 618 S.W.3d at 407.

“On appellate review, it is the duty of the reviewing court to measure the ultimate ruling

of the habeas court against the relevant bail factors to ensure that the court did not abuse

its discretion.” Ex parte Dixon, No. PD-0398-15, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS

659, at *6 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 16, 2015) (not designated for publication).

                                          ANALYSIS

         By his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus and concluding that bail was not

excessive. Appellant’s bail was set by the trial court in the amounts of $150,000 for the

state-jail felony (terroristic threat against peace officer/judge) and $50,000 for the

misdemeanor (terroristic threat of family/household).

         At the conclusion of the bail reduction hearing, the trial court properly noted that

there was no evidence before it establishing that Appellant was unable to post the current

                                              4
bail nor was there any evidence regarding the amount of bail he could post. 5 See Ex

parte Toppings, 422 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (in the absence of evidence

that appellant made efforts to meet previously set bail, a “complaint of excessive bail is

not presented”). Further, Appellant is charged with the offenses of terroristic threat

against a judge and a family member. The State offered evidence that showed that

Appellant’s own brother filed an application for emergency detention based on Appellant’s

threats toward family members, police, and bystanders and possession of a firearm. The

charges against Appellant are based on text messages where he specifically threatened

to kill his mother and Judge Hays.                A recording of a phone conversation between

Appellant and his mother while Appellant was incarcerated for the instant offenses contain

threats that he would “shoot” public officials by whom he felt aggrieved and he “dar[ed]

them to let [him] out.” He also threatened to “break their . . . necks.” Such threats, while

incarcerated, evince that Appellant is a danger to the victims of the offenses for which he

is charged as well as to the community at large. See Ex parte Rean, No. 03-09-00032-

CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7175, at *18–21 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 26, 2009, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (refusal to reduce $250,000 bail not abuse of

discretion when record revealed appellant made threats to kill and bury the victim, had a

propensity for violence, and possessed firearms). We acknowledge that Appellant did

offer evidence that he would have a job and a place to live if he were to be released on

bail. However, when we consider all the evidence relevant to the amount of bail, we

        5 Appellant contends that the trial court “fixated on the lack of testimony regarding Appellant’s ability

to make bail” rather than weighing all of the factors relevant to setting bail. However, the trial court stated,
“I have considered all the factors, particularly . . . the danger to society, and the danger to the particular
named victim . . . in this case, as well as others.”
                                                       5
cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s request

to reduce the amount of bail. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

                                       CONCLUSION

      Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s denial of

Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.

                                                      Judy C. Parker
                                                         Justice

Do not publish.

                                            6