# Golden v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 19, 2009 · 288 S.W.3d 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661822

## Case

- **Full name:** William David GOLDEN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** August 19, 2009
- **Citations:** 288 S.W.3d 516; 2009 WL 618700
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sharp
- **Judges:** Jane Bland
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661822

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661822. Public record. Not legal advice.