Anderer v. State

7 S.W.3d 245, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 8236, 1999 WL 996766

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 4, 1999
• Docket: 14-99-00988-CR
• Status: Published

Opinions

MAJORITY OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

Philip Martin Anderer (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s habeas corpus judgment. Appellant was convicted of the felony offense of criminally negligent homicide. See TexPenal Code Ann. § 19.05 (Vernon 1994). He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Appellant was granted an appeal bond of $50,000 and, as a condition of his appeal bond, the trial judge ordered that Appellant not operate a motor vehicle pending his appeal. He filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the “condition of appeal bond that [Appellant] not drive a motor vehicle is patently unreasonable and unconstitutional.” The trial court denied Appellant’s application. We reverse and remand.

Appellant properly raised his complaint by application for writ of habeas corpus.¹ A bail condition that places an improper infringement on a defendant’s freedom of action is within the scope of habeas corpus relief because it is a “restraint.” Ex parte Valenciano v. State, 720 S.W.2d 523, 524 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The trial court may properly “impose reasonable conditions on bad pending the finality of conviction.” See id.; see also Tex.Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art. 44.04(c) (Vernon Supp.1999). The purpose of such conditions, however, is to assure the presence of a defendant if his or her conviction becomes final. See id.; Speth v. State, 939 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

To determine the reasonableness of a bond condition, we balance “society’s interest in assuring that the [appellant] will appear if and when [the appellant’s] conviction becomes final and the [appellant’s] interest in remaining free pending appeal.” See id. at 525. Although we are sympathetic with the trial court’s efforts to guard the safety of the citizens of this community by not permitting Appellant to operate a motor vehicle pending appeal, the bond condition is not authorized.² The trial court’s bond condition does nothing to advance the purpose of the bond, which is to assure Appellant’s presence when and if his conviction becomes final. See id.; Speth, 939 S.W.2d at 771.

We reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant’s request that the condition prohibiting the operation of any type of a motor vehicle be removed from his appeal bond. Therefore, this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to remove the complained of condition from his appeal bond.

1 . We also note that when the complained of bond condition was imposed, Appellant made a timely objection. See Smith v. State, 993 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (en banc).

2 . If a trial court possesses “good cause” to believe that a defendant will not appear when and if his or her conviction becomes final or is likely to commit another offense while free on bail, the proper action is to deny an appeal bond and commit the defendant to custody. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.04(c) (Vernon Supp.1999).