Opinion
No. 07-20-00123-CR
07-23-2020
EX PARTE KEVDRICK DAQUAN JEFFERSON
On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19-003320-CV-85; Honorable Kyle Hawthorne, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
This is an expedited appeal, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, of the trial court's decision to deny, Appellant, Kevdrick Daquan Jefferson, pretrial habeas corpus relief. On October 10, 2019, Appellant, was arrested for the felony offenses of aggravated promotion of prostitution and compelling prostitution. The amount of bail for each offense was set at $70,000 and $30,000, respectively. On November 21, 2019, Appellant filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction. A hearing was held and the application was denied by the trial court. In this appeal, by a single issue, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reduce the amount of his bail. We affirm the trial court's order.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.04 (West Supp. 2019).
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.05 (West Supp. 2019).
Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting in Waco, this appeal was transferred to this court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and this court on any relevant issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's arrest was based on two probable cause affidavits which were admitted into evidence. According to those affidavits, two Jane Does contacted the police to report that Appellant was forcing them and a third Jane Doe to post advertisements on an escort/sex services website to engage in sexual acts to earn money for him. One of the complainants alleged that Appellant physically assaulted her on at least five occasions for not earning enough money.
At a hearing held on his application for a writ of habeas corpus, Appellant requested that his bail be reduced to $10,000 for the felony offenses, which was all he could afford according to his application. In support of his request, he testified he did not have any felony convictions, only misdemeanors for driving with a suspended license, marihuana possession, and evading arrest. Appellant further advised the trial court that if he could make bail, he had a job waiting for him, as well as the support of family members. He also promised to appear at any future court settings.
During cross-examination, the State elicited testimony from Appellant of other occasions in which he had promised to appear for a court setting but failed to do so. In fact, Appellant was out on bond for another offense when he allegedly committed the pending offenses. Appellant's aunt testified that she helped raise him and they have a good relationship. She offered to help him appear for any future court dates. However, she admitted she was unaware of his prior failures to appear until she heard about them at the hearing.
Following the presentation of testimony, Appellant's counsel argued for a reduction in bail to $10,000, based on the fact that he had family ties in the community and because that is all he could afford. Counsel also noted that Appellant was eligible for community supervision if convicted of the pending charges. The State, however, recapped Appellant's prior history of failing to appear and failing to comply with other court orders. As such, the State argued against a reduction in bail due to the violent nature of the aggravated offenses pending. Following arguments, the trial court denied Appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus and for a reduction on his bail.
APPLICABLE LAW
Prior to conviction, every citizen accused of a crime has a "strong interest in liberty." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). In order to protect that interest, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. In addition, the Texas Constitution guarantees that "[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident . . . ." See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 11. This constitutional right to reasonable bail has also been codified. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.07 (West 2005) (providing "[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident"). See also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(2) (West 2015) (providing "[t]he power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression").
A defendant's right to pretrial bail, however, may be subordinated to the greater needs of society. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 750-51. In balancing the liberty interest of an accused and safety interests of society, the Texas Legislature has adopted rules and guidelines whereby an accused can obtain pretrial release through the posting of an adequate bail bond. "'Bail' is the security given by the accused that he will appear and answer . . . the accusation brought against him . . . ." See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.01 (West 2015). See also Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
The primary purpose of pretrial bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial on the offense charged. See Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). In a proceeding seeking a reduction in the amount of pretrial bail, the burden of proof is on the party seeking that reduction to show that the amount of bail presently being required by the trial court is excessive. Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d at 479.
Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth rules for fixing the amount of bail required. The dollar amount of that bail and any conditions of bail are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, governed by the Texas Constitution and the rules stated in article 17.15:
1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (West 2015). In determining an appropriate amount of bail, the trial court may also consider factors such as (1) the defendant's work record, (2) family and community ties, (3) length of residency, (4) prior criminal record, (5) conformity with previous bond conditions, (6) the existence of any other bonds outstanding, and (7) aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Ex parte Emery, 970 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, no pet.). Simply because an accused cannot meet the amount of bail set by the trial court does not automatically render that amount excessive. Ex parte Vance, 608 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Ex parte Scott, 122 S.W.3d 866, 870 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). When faced with excessive bail, an accused has the right to assert his or her constitutional right to reasonable bail through the use of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Weise v. State, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Ex parte Keller, 595 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)).
2. The power to require bail is not to be used so 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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court's decision in a habeas proceeding regarding the imposition or reduction of bail for an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 850; Ex parte Davis, 147 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.). 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). As such, a reviewing court will not disturb a decision of the trial court if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).
ANALYSIS
Appellant testified that he did not have the resources to post bail in excess of $10,000. To support his request for a reduction in bail, he noted he has no prior felony convictions and he testified to having family ties in the community and being a lifelong resident of the community. Although he did not present evidence of his work history, he did testify that a job opportunity awaited him should he be released pending trial. In addition, he promised that he would appear at all future settings.
Other factors the trial court was permitted to consider in deciding whether to reduce the amount of bail previously set were (1) the aggravating nature of the pending charges, i.e., violence committed against the multiple complainants in order to compel them into acts of prostitution for profit and (2) Appellant's prior history of failing to appear for court settings. Based on the record before us, it is reasonable to assume that, if released on a reduced amount of bail, Appellant might not appear for court when summoned. Despite his promise to appear, his previous conduct indicates otherwise. In light of this important indicator of future conduct, when we consider the safety of the complainants and the nature of the alleged offenses, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's request for a reduced amount of bail, his sole issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's Order Denying Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is affirmed.
Per Curiam