Ex Parte Sellers

516 S.W.2d 665, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1986
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 18, 1974
Docket49522
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 516 S.W.2d 665 (Ex Parte Sellers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Sellers, 516 S.W.2d 665, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1986 (Tex. 1974).

Opinion

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding in the 196th District Court denying the requested relief. The appellant in three grounds of error alleges that the trial court erred in not reducing the amount of the bond, in not allowing the appellant to present evidence that the bond was excessive, and in not ordering the release of the appellant for lack of probable cause to believe an offense had been committed.

It has been duly brought to our attention that the appellant is now under an indictment for murder in this case. Therefore, the question of probable cause to hold the appellant has been rendered moot. Ex parte White, 486 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

At the hearing on the writ, after evidence had been presented about the probable cause for the detention of the appellant, the trial judge, over the objections of counsel, refused to allow the appellant to present any evidence that the $100,000 bail was excessive. There is no evidence in the record that the amount required is excessive, although the appellant sought to include such evidence in his brief. If it be alleged in the petition that the bail is excessive, the applicant is entitled to a hearing on the writ. Arts. 11.24, 11.10, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The burden of proof is upon the appellant to show that the bond is excessive. Holliman v. State, 485 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Bailey, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 649, 294 S.W. 213 (1927). The appellant must show that he has attempted to and cannot make bond in the amount fixed. Ex parte Fisher, 492 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Ex parte Williams, 467 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex parte Cooper, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 73, 124 S.W.2d 142 (1939). If the appellant makes no effort to present evidence concerning the amount of the bond, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Ex parte Mauck, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 200, 254 S.W.2d 128 (1953). However, when the trial judge does not allow evidence to be presented at all, it cannot be determined by this Court whether or not the bail required is excessive. It was error to refuse to hear the evidence proffered by the appellant. In re Campbell, 28 Tex.App. 376, 13 S.W. 141 (1890).

Therefore, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions that the trial court accord the appellant a hearing on the amount of bail within thirty days, if it has not already been done.

It is so ordered.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

in Re Erik Ramos II
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
in Re: Matthew Gonzalez
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Adame, Noe, Relators
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Tom Benson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Chari v. Vore
2001 Ohio 49 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
Ex Parte Welch
729 S.W.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Ex Parte Plumb
595 S.W.2d 544 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Ex Parte Vasquez
558 S.W.2d 477 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Ex Parte Branch
553 S.W.2d 380 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Ex parte Preston
533 S.W.2d 820 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
516 S.W.2d 665, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-sellers-texcrimapp-1974.