holding that $200,000 bail on each of two drug possession charges was excessive when accused lived with wife, owned and operated a flooring business, previously attended drug and alcohol abuse counseling, would resume counseling if released on bond, and had support from church and community
How later courts described this case
- holding that $200,000 bail on each of two drug possession charges was excessive when accused lived with wife, owned and operated a flooring business, previously attended drug and alcohol abuse counseling, would resume counseling if released on bond, and had support from church and community
- distinguishing Ex parte Ruiz, 129 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), and Ex parte Willman, 695 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no writ)
- reducing bail to $75,000 in second-degree-felony possession-of-controlled-substance case
- reducing bail to $75,000 in second-degree possession of controlled substance case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
JIM SHARP, Justice.
While I concur in the Court’s judgments reducing Golden’s two bonds, I write to address the directive nature of article 17.15(4):
The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15(4) (Vernon 5005) (emphasis added).
The statute requires the trial court to consider and evaluate the defendant’s ability to make bail. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1911 (Philip Babcock Gove ed.1961) (defining “regard”). In the absence of proof being offered by the defendant, the statute requires the tidal court — sitting in its capacity as a magistrate — to elicit testimony on the defendant’s “ability to make bail.”
Here, Golden, proceeding pro se, offered no evidence to the trial court of his ability to make bail. While there was testimony that a bondsman was willing to post a $5,000 bond, that is only evidence of what the bondsman was willing to risk, not evidence of Golden’s ability to make bond. Without regarding Golden’s ability to make bail, the trial court set bail at $200,000 in each case in an evidentiary vacuum. By failing to elicit evidence from Golden, a pro se defendant, regarding his ability to make bail, the trial court failed to *522 perform the duty imposed by article 17.15(4).