Opinion
No. 09-09-00181-CR
Submitted on June 2, 2009.
Opinion Delivered June 10, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 92382.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Andre Rishawn Roberts filed with the trial court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought a reduction in the amount of his bond pending appeal from $150,000 to $10,000. The trial court initially denied Roberts's petition, but subsequently entered an order lowering Roberts's bond to $125,000. Roberts then filed this appeal, in which he contends (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by setting bond at $150,000, in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by granting habeas relief but failing to reduce the bond to a "[r]easonable" amount, and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set a reasonable bond in violation of articles 11.05, 11.24, 17.15, and 44.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We review the trial court's order reducing Roberts's bond for abuse of discretion. See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Ex parte Ruiz, 129 S.W.3d 751, 753 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). The trial court has discretion to set the amount of bail pending appeal and to impose reasonable conditions on the bail. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.04(c) (Vernon 2006). Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the criteria that trial courts must consider in setting the amount of bail, as follows:
1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.
2. The power to require bail is not to be so used 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.Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15 (Vernon 2005). The trial court may also consider the appellant's work record, family and community ties, length of residency, prior criminal record, conformity with previous bond conditions, the existence of any outstanding bonds, and any alleged aggravating circumstances involved in the offense. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849-50. Roberts bears the burden of demonstrating that the amount of the bond is excessive. See id. at 849. Roberts provided to the trial court an affidavit, in which he averred that he is unable to make a bond of $150,000; he has lived in Beaumont; he has family support and enough education to seek good employment; and he would make all required appearances if released on bond. The trial court's hearing, if any, on Roberts's motion does not appear in the appellate record. In addition, although Roberts argues in his brief that the amount of bond set by the trial court violated various constitutional and statutory provisions, the affidavit he provided to the trial court does not demonstrate that a bond of $125,000 is excessive in light of the factors set forth in article 17.15 and Rubac. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15; Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849-50. In light of the burden of proof placed on Roberts and the absence of evidence, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting Roberts's bond at $125,000. We overrule Roberts's issues and affirm the trial court's order. AFFIRMED.