Court Opinion

ID: 9683831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:37:35.6714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.512568
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Concurring in the result reached I write only to point out that I view the twelve indictments for burglary and one for pos*318session of a criminal instrument pending in Texas against highly mobile residents of California more germane to the “reasonable assurance” part of rule 1, Article 17.15, V.A.C.C.P., than to that part of rule 4 prescribing consideration of the “nature of the offense,” which, it is said, embraces “potential punishment.” The latter factor not only comes perilously close to implicating the presumption of innocence but also is not as compelling, in my mind at least, as the potential of absconding in the peculiar circumstances presented to us here. Thus, I am unable to say that the trial judge, who saw more and sensed what we cannot from a cold record, abused his discretion.
Accordingly, I concur in the result.