Court Opinion

ID: 9842459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-23 10:08:50.576759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:10.100176
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00159-CR

                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                   TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                             TYLER, TEXAS

 EX PARTE:                                                   §       APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

 OMARION LEWIS                                               §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

                                                             §       ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Omarion Lewis appeals from the trial court’s denial of his pretrial application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction. We reverse and remand.

                                                  BACKGROUND
         A warrant was issued for Appellant’s arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Three co-defendants were also arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At the time
of the alleged offense, 1 Appellant was seventeen years old and a high school student.
Accompanied by his mother, Appellant turned himself in, and he was subsequently indicted. 2
Appellant’s bond was set at $500,000, and he filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, in
which he sought reduction of his bond. In the motion, Appellant asserted that he is a United States
citizen with no prior criminal record, and he asked the court to schedule an evidentiary hearing
and to set a bond in a reasonable amount with reasonable conditions to allow him to obtain release
pending trial. Appellant asserted that the amount of his bail “is unsupported by the evidence and
law and is therefore excessive and unlawful.”

         1
             Public online jail records from Angelina County, Texas, indicate that the offense occurred on March 12,
2023.
         2
          The indictment does not appear in the record, but the prosecutor stated at the beginning of the bond reduction
hearing that Appellant was indicted.
       At the hearing on the application, Appellant’s mother, Betty Shankle, testified that she has
worked as a correctional officer for twenty-two years and has never been in trouble with the law.
Shankle explained that Appellant is a lifelong citizen of the United States and the State of Texas,
is unemployed, did not graduate from high school, and has no money. Shankle contacted three
bond companies, but each required a fee plus ten percent of the bond amount, and she testified that
she can only afford a $30,000 bond. Shankle does not own a home, owns one vehicle, and does
not have weapons in her home. Shankle testified that she would post bond for Appellant if it were
reduced, and Appellant would reside with her. Shankle testified that although she resides in
Wisconsin, she can move back to Texas to live with one of her sisters, and she would ensure that
Appellant would appear at every court date and abide by the bond conditions. When asked by the
prosecutor if she is aware that the victim died, Shankle testified, “I wasn’t aware at the time.”
When Shankle learned that an arrest warrant for Appellant was issued, she immediately came to
Texas and accompanied Appellant when he surrendered to the police. Shankle hopes that
Appellant will obtain a GED and employment.
       The trial court signed an order denying Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.
This appeal followed.

                                           BOND AMOUNT
       In one issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to
reduce the amount of his bail bond. The State did not file a brief.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law
       Because the decision regarding a proper bail amount lies within the sound discretion of the
trial court, we review the trial court’s denial of a request to reduce bail for an abuse of discretion.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (West Supp. 2022); Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848,
850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007,
no pet.). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we do not substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 379-80 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1990). We must determine whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, without
reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. at 380. A trial court abuses its discretion when its
decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. at 391 (op.

                                                  2
on reh’g). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that the bail set is excessive. Rubac, 611
S.W.2d at 849.
       The purpose of setting a pretrial bond is to secure an appellant’s presence at trial. See Ex
parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ex parte Rincon,
Nos. 04-13-00715-CR—04-13-00718-CR, 2014 WL 2443870, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
May 28, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The amount of bond necessary
to achieve said purpose is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion; however, the trial court’s
discretion is bounded and guided by constitutional and statutory provisions. See Ex parte Estrada,
398 S.W.3d 723, 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.). The federal constitution, our state
constitution, and our state laws prohibit “excessive” bail. U.S. CONST. Amend. VIII, TEX. CONST.
art. I, § 13; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.09 (West 2005).
       “[B]ail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be
complied with[;] however, “[t]he power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an
instrument of oppression.”            TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(1), (2). Although a
defendant’s ability to make bail must be considered, it is not controlling. See id. art. 17.15(4);
Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d at 550. The primary considerations when assessing the reasonableness of
bail are the punishments that can be imposed and the nature of the offense. Ex parte Ramirez-
Hernandez, 642 S.W.3d 907, 917 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.); Ex parte Melartin,
464 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). The trial court must also
consider the safety of law enforcement and the community.3 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
17.15(5). Additional factors to be weighed in determining the amount of bond include (1) the
accused’s work record, (2) the accused’s family and community ties, (3) the accused’s length of
residency, (4) the accused’s prior criminal record, (5) the accused’s conformity with previous bond
conditions, (6) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any, and (7) aggravating circumstances
allegedly involved in the charged offense. See Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849-50.
Analysis
       We begin by summarizing the evidence adduced at the hearing regarding the nature of the
offense and the potential punishments, as well as other applicable factors. Appellant is charged
with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the prosecutor indicated that the victim died of
his injuries. The nature of the offense and the potential punishment weigh in favor of a somewhat

       3
           The safety of the victim is also a factor; however, in this case, the victim is deceased.

                                                            3
high bail amount. If convicted of the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, Appellant faces a punishment range of two to twenty years in prison and a fine of
up to $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33 (West 2019), 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp.
2022). The safety of the community also supports a somewhat high bail amount. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 17.15(a)(5).
       Shankle testified that if Appellant’s bond were lowered and he were released on bond, he
would reside with her at her sister’s residence in Texas, and she hopes he would work toward
obtaining a GED. Shankle does not own a residence, she only owns one vehicle, and she explained
that Appellant is unemployed and has no money. Shankle testified that she could only pay the
required amount for a $30,000 bond. In addition, Shankle’s testimony suggests that Appellant’s
prospects for employment might be limited by his young age and lack of a high school diploma.
Shankle believed she could ensure Appellant’s compliance with bond conditions and his
appearance for any court proceedings. Appellant is a lifelong citizen of the United States and the
State of Texas. No evidence was adduced suggesting that Appellant might flee or attempt to avoid
prosecution if he were released, and the record indicates that Appellant voluntarily surrendered to
the authorities, accompanied by Shankle.
       Our review of the evidence indicates that the bond is substantially higher than Appellant
can realistically afford to pay. See Ramirez-Hernandez, 642 S.W.3d at 920. Shankle contacted
three bond companies, and she determined that she could not afford to pay Appellant’s bail of
$500,000, but could afford a bond of $30,000. A defendant’s inability to make bail does not
automatically render the amount excessive. Ex parte Mazuera, No. 01-21-00612-CR, 2022 WL
1110989, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 14, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication); see also Ex parte Vance, 608 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). If a
defendant’s ability to make bail controlled, the trial court’s role in setting the amount of bail would
be eliminated, and the defendant would be in the position to determine the amount of bail, which
is antithetical to the purpose of a bond. See Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146, 150 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). However, bail set in an amount that cannot be satisfied can
potentially displace the presumption of innocence. Mazuera, 2022 WL 1110989, at *9, see also
Ex parte Bogia, 56 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
       Public online jail records of Angelina County, Texas, indicate that Appellant was booked
into the Angelina County Sheriff’s Office on March 17, 2023. Appellant states in his brief, and

                                                  4
public online jail records indicate, that bond for one of his co-defendants, Jaykeevien Collins, was
set at $50,000. 4 Public online jail records indicate that bond for the other two co-defendants,
Zahdyn Brooks and Jaiquies Lewis, was set at $500,000. The limited record before us does not
reveal the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense or the particular roles Appellant and the
three co-defendants are accused of playing in said offense, but public records indicate that all four
defendants were charged with the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon.
        Appellant was eighteen years old at the time of the bond hearing, is unemployed, lacks a
high school diploma, and must rely upon Shankle to pay any bail bond. Although Appellant’s
inability to make bail or post a bond since his arrest is not dispositive, it is a factor to be considered.
See Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d at 550; Mazuera, 2022 WL 1110989, at *9; see also Rincon, 2014
WL 2443870, at *3. When bail is so high that the defendant cannot realistically pay for it, the trial
court essentially displaces the presumption of innocence. See Mazuera, 2022 WL 1110989, at *10.
Bail cannot be used as an instrument of oppression. Id.; see also Ex parte Durst, 148 S.W.3d 496,
499 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (holding that when bail amount was set solely
to prevent defendant from being released from jail, it was being used as an instrument of
oppression). Shankle testified at the hearing that she could afford to pay a $30,000 bond, yet the
trial court set bond at an amount almost seventeen times what Appellant could reasonably pay,
which constitutes a de facto setting of no bond. See DePena v. State, 56 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (holding that setting bail at four times what appellant could
reasonably pay was a de facto setting of no bond).
        Case law is of somewhat limited value in addressing the issue of the appropriate amount
of bail “because appellate decisions on bail matters are often brief and avoid extended discussions,
and because the ‘cases are so individualized that generalization from results reached in others is
difficult.’” Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 571 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d) (quoting
41 George E. Dix and Robert O. Dawson, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
§ 16.51 (2d ed. 2001)). However, combined with the factors discussed above, a comparison of the
bail amount in this case to the bail amounts in cases decided by other intermediate appellate courts
is instructive and leads us to conclude that Appellant’s bail of $500,000 is excessively high. See
Ex parte Taylor, No. 02-20-00010-CR, 2020 WL 1963788, at *8-9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr.

        4
            The prosecutor stated the co-defendants’ names at the bond reduction hearing.

                                                          5
23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (reversing bail amount of $500,000
on first-degree felony charge of aggravated robbery); Ex parte Bogia, 56 S.W.3d 835, 836, 840
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (reversing $360,000 bail in second-degree felony
theft case); Ex parte McDonald, 852 S.W.2d 730, 736 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, no writ)
(reversing $1,000,000 bail on charge of capital murder when appellant voluntarily surrendered,
facts surrounding offense were not developed at bond reduction hearing, and appellant could not
afford the bond); see also Ex parte Reyes-Martinez, 653 S.W.3d 273, 277, 283 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2022, no pet.) (upholding bail of $50,000 on charge of aggravated assault with deadly
weapon and $300,000 for felony murder); Ex parte Banks, Nos. 13-22-00330-CR, 13-22-00331-
CR, 2023 WL 3371920, at *1, 5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 11, 2023) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (upholding bail of $350,000 on charge of aggravated assault with
deadly weapon and $100,000 for unlawful possession of firearm by felon); Clemons, 220 S.W.3d
at 179 (upholding bail of $400,000 when defendant was charged with indecency with a child and
aggravated assault and made comments about fleeing to Mexico); but see Ex parte Murray, Nos.
02-13-00151-CR, 02-13-00152-CR, 02-13-00153-CR, 2013 WL 5425312, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Sept. 26, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding bail of
$750,000 for charge of aggravated assault with deadly weapon when appellant was also charged
with deadly conduct and theft of firearm).
       As discussed above, the nature of the offense, the potential punishment Appellant faces,
and the safety of the community support a somewhat high bail amount; however, the $500,000
bail set by the trial court is well beyond what Appellant can afford. Appellant is eighteen years
old, lacks money, and is unemployed, and Shankle cannot afford to pay the bond on bail in the
amount of $500,000. Appellant voluntarily surrendered and he has no previous criminal history,
and no evidence was adduced indicating that he is a flight risk. Appellant would live with Shankle
if he were released, and she testified that she would ensure that he would appear in court when
required and would comply with the bond conditions. Appellant is not charged with a first-degree
felony or capital murder.
       After reviewing the record and considering the factors set forth in Article 17.15 and Rubac,
we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s request for bail
reduction and hold that the amount of Appellant’s bail is unsupported by the evidence and therefore
excessive. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

                                                6
                                                  DISPOSITION
         Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                                                                JAMES T. WORTHEN
                                                                   Chief Justice

Opinion delivered September 20, 2023
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          7
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00159-CR

                                 EX PARTE: OMARION LEWIS

                                Appeal from the 217th District Court
                         of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. W-020-23)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein,
and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the
judgment of the court below, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the
judgment be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in
accordance with the opinion of this Court; and that this decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
                    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.