Opinion
Nos. 05-05-00814-CR, 05-05-00815-CR, 05-05-00816-CR
Opinion Issued August 23, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-03-279, 2-03-280, 2-03-451. Affirm.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and LANG-MIERS.
OPINION
John Thomas Tello appeals the trial court's orders revoking his appeal bonds. In two issues, appellant contends the underlying judgments of conviction are void and the bond conditions are unconscionable. We affirm the trial court's orders. Appellant was charged with two indecency with a child offenses and one possession of child pornography offense. Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on five years' community supervision in each case. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven years' confinement in each case. The appeals from those convictions are pending as cause nos. 05-05-00368-CR, 05-05-00369-CR, and 05-05-00370-CR, styled John Thomas Tello v. The State of Texas. The trial judge set appeal bonds at $15,000 in each case and on April 29, 2005, appellant posted the bonds. Several conditions were set on the bonds, including that appellant not go within 1000 feet of a place where children generally gather and that appellant appear for all court hearings. On May 5, 2005, the State moved to revoke appellant's bonds, alleging that he had gone into two daycare facilities. A hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2005 on the motion to revoke the bonds. Appellant did not appear at the scheduled time for the hearing, and the judge revoked appellant's bonds. However, when appellant appeared later that day, the judge reinstated the bonds and listened to appellant's explanation for his tardiness to the hearing and his actions to comply with the appeal bonds. The judge continued the appeal bonds and stressed to appellant what the conditions were. The judge also scheduled another hearing for June 3, 2005 and notified appellant in open court of that hearing. Appellant did not appear at the June 3, 2005 hearing and the judge revoked the appeal bonds. These appeals followed. In two issues, appellant challenges the adjudication proceedings and the amount and conditions of the appeal bonds. We review the trial court's decision regarding bond pending appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. See Ex parte Turner, 612 S.W.2d 611, 612 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). A trial judge abuses his discretion if his ruling is outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (op. on reh'g). Appellant's first issue attacks the proceeding at which his guilt was adjudicated and he was sentenced to imprisonment. Those issues are not before us in these bond revocation appeals. Accordingly, we resolve appellant's first issue against him. In his second issue, appellant challenges the amounts and conditions of the appeal bonds. Appellant claims he should have been released on a personal bond and that the conditions of the bonds were unconscionable. Appellant posted the bonds that were set in these cases. Therefore, his complaint regarding the amount of the bonds is moot. See Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 852 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). As to the conditions of the bonds, it appears appellant is complaining of the condition that he not go within 1000 feet of a place where children generally gather. Appellant did not complain about this condition either at the time it was set or at the May 20, 2005 hearing. Therefore, he has not preserved the complaint for appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1). Moreover, another condition of appellant's bonds was that he appear for all court hearings. Appellant makes no complaint regarding the propriety of that condition. The record reflects that on May 20, 2005, appellant was personally notified in open court of the June 3, 2005 hearing, yet appellant did not appear for that hearing. The judgments nisi reflect the judge revoked the appeal bonds when appellant failed to appear for the hearing. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the appeal bonds. We resolve appellant's second issue against him. We affirm the trial court's orders.
Appellant sought to remove these appeal bond cases and the underlying cases to federal court. Those attempts were rejected. See Texas v. Tello, No. 3:05-CV-1049-N (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2005).