stating that, absent contrary law, trial court has inherent power to impose conditions on bail pending appeal The Honorable Susan D. Reed - Page 3 (JC-0215) that relate to purpose of assuring defendant’s continued appearance
How later courts described this case
- stating that, absent contrary law, trial court has inherent power to impose conditions on bail pending appeal The Honorable Susan D. Reed - Page 3 (JC-0215) that relate to purpose of assuring defendant’s continued appearance
- holding that the Chapter 17 procedures concerning bail are modified and supplemented by article 44.04 after an accused has been convicted and post-verdict proceedings are initiated
- stating that, absent contrary law, trial court has inherent power to impose conditions on bail pending appeal that relate to purpose of assuring defendant's continued appearance
- trial court abused its discretion to prohibit appellant from engaging in the business of training and kenneling dogs as a condition of bail pending appeal from conviction for cruelty to animals, because condition is not relevant to securing appellant's appearance in court
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by Ex Parte Anderer, 2001 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 103 (2001)
See Dallas v. State , 983 S.W.2d 276, 278 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), disapproved of on other grounds by Ex parte Anderer , 61 S.W.3d 398, 405 & n.33 (Tex. Crim.
The opinion
MANSFIELD, J.,
delivered the concurring and dissenting opinion.
I agree with the opinion of the majority that holds a trial court has inherent power in misdemeanor appeals to impose conditions on bail that directly or indirectly relate to the purpose of assuring the defendant’s continued appearance. However, I respectfully submit that the trial court’s inherent power is not limited to setting conditions relating to the defendant’s continued appearance.
I would hold that Texas Government Code 21.001 provides the trial courts of Texas broad inherent power to place reasonable conditions on appeal bonds in misdemeanor cases, subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal.
In the present ease, appellant was convicted of cruelty to animals; it was clearly reasonable for the trial court, as a condition of his appeal bond, to order appellant not to train or board animals pending resolution of his appeal. The condition directly relates to the offense for which he was convicted; as such, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Accordingly, I would overrule the judgment of the court of appeals.