No. 05-05-01557-CR
Opinion issued February 7, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2004-2-889. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
Opinion By Justice BRIDGES.
James Melvin Leverett was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed at ninety days in jail and a $1000 fine. The judge probated both the sentence and the fine for two years. Appellant appealed from the DWI conviction. Following a hearing, the trial court set an appeal bond in the amount of $1500 and imposed several conditions on the bond. In three issues, appellant contends the bond conditions do not relate to the purpose of assuring his continued appearance, are more stringent and coercive than the conditions of his community supervision, and were intended to forego his "constitutional" right to appeal. We affirm the trial court's order.
The appeal of the DWI conviction is pending as cause no. 05-05-01496-CR, James Melvin Leverett v. The State of Texas.
The State did not file a brief.
Applicable Law
After conviction, the right to bail is afforded in all misdemeanor cases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005). It is within the trial judge's discretion to set the amount of the appeal bond and to impose conditions on the bond. See id. art. 44.04(a), (c); Ex parte Anderer, 61 S.W.3d at 398, 401 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Conditions of bond pending appeal must meet one standard: they must be reasonable. See Ex parte Anderer, 61 S.W.3d at 402. The only interest that is furthered by a defendant's right to remain free during appeal is the interest in protecting the defendant from an erroneous judgment. Id. at 406. That interest must be balanced against society's interest in enforcing the penal laws. See id. Chief among society's interest is to ensure the public safety through: (1) the deterrent influence of the penalties provided; (2) the rehabilitation of those convicted of violations; and (3) such punishment as may be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior. See id. Conditions of bond related to these interests are reasonable. See id. Analysis
In his third issue, appellant contends the conditions were imposed with the intent to cause him to forego his "constitutional" right to appeal. Neither the United States nor the Texas Constitutions provide the right to appeal. See Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 646, 646 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The right to appeal is established solely by statute. See id.; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (Vernon 1979). Because there is no constitutional right to appeal, the bond conditions could not operate to violate that right. We resolve appellant's third issue against him. In his first and second issues, appellant complains of virtually all of the conditions of bond. In his first issue, appellant contends the conditions do not relate, either directly or indirectly, to the purpose of assuring his continued appearance. In his second issue, appellant contends the conditions are more stringent than the conditions of community supervision imposed by the trial court. The only interest furthered by the bond permitting appellant to remain free during the appeal is protecting him against an erroneous judgment. See Ex parte Anderer, 61 S.W.3d at 406. That interest must be weighed against society's interest in ensuring the public safety. See id. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the bond conditions are reasonably related to these interests. See id. We resolve appellant's first and second issues against him. We affirm the trial court's order setting the conditions of the appeal bond.