Opinion
04-21-00035-CR 04-21-00036-CR
01-26-2022
EX PARTE Noel PARKS
Do not publish
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court Nos. CR-18-0000186, CR-19-0000092 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
IRENE RIOS, JUSTICE
This appeal is from an order denying relief in a habeas corpus proceeding in which appellant sought release on bail pending a hearing on the State's motion to revoke her community supervision. We affirm.
Background
This appeal arises from two different cases before the trial court. In cause number CR-18-0000186, Parks was indicted for possession of a controlled substance (the "possession case"). On June 12, 2019, Parks pled guilty to the offense and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years.
In cause number CR-19-0000092, Parks was indicted for her failure to appear on a court date in the possession case (the "failure to appear case"). On June 12, 2019, Parks pled guilty to the failure to appear offense. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction, sentenced Parks to five-years' confinement, and probated the sentence for five-years' community supervision.
On June 15, 2020, the State filed motions to revoke Parks's community supervision in both cases and proceed to an adjudication of guilt in the possession case. Pursuant to an arrest warrant, Parks was arrested on August 28, 2020. On January 15, 2021, Parks filed an "Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, or, In the Alternative, Motion to Set Bond" requesting she be released on a personal recognizance bond or, alternatively, that the trial court set bail at a reasonable amount until it hears the State's motions to revoke and motion to adjudicate guilt.
The trial court denied Parks's writ of habeas corpus, set bail at $20,000 in the possession case, and denied bail in the failure to appear case. Parks appeals.
Discussion
In her first issue, Parks acknowledges she was granted bail in the possession case but claims the trial court erred when it denied bail in the failure to appear case.
"The right to bail under the Texas Constitution applies only to prisoners prior to conviction." See Watkins v. State, 883 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Laday, 594 S.W.2d 102, 103-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held "that a probationer is not entitled to bail as a matter of right pending a hearing on the State's motion to revoke probation, but . . . a person so situated may be admitted to bail by the court in the exercise of its discretion." Ex parte Ainsworth, 532 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
Here, the trial court set bail at $20,000 in the possession case and denied bail in the failure to appear case. Parks was entitled to bail in the possession case because her adjudication of guilt had been deferred and she had not yet been convicted in that case. See Ex parte Laday, 594 S.W.2d at 104 (holding a defendant is entitled to bail pending an adjudication hearing because the defendant has not yet been convicted when the defendant's adjudication of guilt has been deferred). In contrast, Parks was not entitled to bail in the failure to appear case because she had already been convicted of that felony charge, her sentence was probated, and she was placed on community supervision. See Ex parte Ainsworth, 532 S.W.2d at 641. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Parks's writ of habeas corpus and motion to set bail in the failure to appear case.
In her second issue, Parks argues she is entitled to bail unless the State produces evidence substantially showing the defendant's guilt of a new felony offense. In her third issue, Parks requests this court grant her writ of habeas corpus and set an appropriate bond for her release. The cases cited by Parks speak to a defendant's pre-conviction right to bail and are inapplicable here. Having determined Parks is not entitled to bail as a matter of right in the failure to appear case, we need not address Parks's second and third issues.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's order denying Parks's application for writ of habeas corpus and denying her motion to set bond in the failure to appear case.