# Wright v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · June 11, 1998 · 976 S.W.2d 815

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777713

## Case

- **Full name:** Pamela Helen WRIGHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** June 11, 1998
- **Citations:** 976 S.W.2d 815; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 3611; 1998 WL 304562
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Smith
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Taft, Smith
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9777713

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that bail was not excessive even when no bond companies in the county were able or willing to write a bond for the amount set by the trial court
- holding that a criminal defendant’s inability to make bail does not render bail excessive

## Opinion text

JACKSON B. SMITH, Jr., Justice,
dissenting (Assigned).
I respectfully dissent. The appellant is charged with aggravated assault and her bond is set at $500,000. Because the facts are set forth in the majority opinion, I see no necessity to reiterate them. The only basis that I can see for affirming such a high amount for the bond is what the evidence shows the appellant said when she was in a drunken or “crazy” condition.
The majority appears to primarily base their affirmation of the $500,000 bond on the possibility that the appellant will flee from the jurisdiction of the court. This seems to ignore the drunken condition of the appellant when the statement and assault were made. Further, apparently little weight was given by the majority to the evidence that the appellant may inherit a substantial amount from her father’s estate. If the appellant flees from this country, with all the criminal charges now pending against her, there is the possibility she would never obtain any of her inheritance. This should be a strong motivational force for the appellant to comply with the court’s order.
Although there is no precise standard for reviewing bond settings on appeal, we do have certain guidelines set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code CRIM. P. art. 17.15 (Vernon Supp.1998). Article 17.15 first instructs us that the “bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.” Except for the appellant’s remarks while in a drunken condition there is no reason to believe that she would not comply with the court’s order.
It is manifest that the $500,000 bond is not conforming with the usual bond amount set in aggravated assault eases. The district court judges in Harris County, Texas, who have been designated to handle criminal cases, have adopted “District Court Bail Schedule.” Aggravated assault, as charged, is a second degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code § 22.02(b) (Vernon 1994). The suggested bond amount on that schedule for a second degree felony is $10,000. Granted, there are extenuating circumstances in this case, but 50 times the suggested bond amount appears to be excessive.
*822 Second, article 17.15 tells us that bail should not be an “instrument of oppression.” The evidence shows that the appellant’s present financial condition is insufficient to pay the fee charge for a $500,000 bond. It is true that the appellant may inherit sufficient funds at some future date to make the bond, but such date is unknown to anyone. As far as I can tell from the record, no witness would even speculate as to when the appellant’s inheritance might come about. Under these circumstances the $500,000 bond is an “instrument of oppression.”
Article 17.15 also tells us that consideration should be given to the future safety of the victim and the community. There is no evidence whatsoever that the appellant is in any manner a threat to the community, now or in the future. As to the complainant’s safety, the complainant is a convicted felon, for burglary and aggravated assault, now on parole. I see nothing in the record showing that his safety is in jeopardy.
Finally, I see no facts in this case that would require or justify a $500,000 bail bond. I believe the bond is an “instrument of oppression” and excessive. Based on the facts and nature of the offense, I would reduce the appellant’s bond to $100,000.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777713. Public record. Not legal advice.