Karl Dean Stahmann v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 20, 2015
Docket03-14-00811-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Karl Dean Stahmann v. State (Karl Dean Stahmann v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00811-CR 3832795 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/20/2015 4:05:04 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS KARL DEAN STAHMANN, * 1/20/2015 4:05:04 PM Appellant * JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk v. * No. 03-14-00811-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

In support of this Motion, Appellant would show:

1. Appellant has been confined in the Comal County jail without bail since

December 1, 2014.

2. Originally, Appellant was charged in a two count indictment with the state jail

felony offense(s) of credit card abuse and subsequently placed on deferred

adjudication community supervision for each count.

3. The State moved to have the trial judge enter an adjudication of guilt.

4. Appellant was released on bail pending a hearing on the State’s motion.

5. On December, 1, 2014, the trial judge conducted a hearing on the State’s

motion and entered an adjudication of guilt. However, the trial judge did

not assess punishment at confinement in a state fail facility. Instead, the

trial judge entered a finding of guilt and again placed Appellant on Page 1 of 4 community supervision.

6. Despite receiving a suspended sentence, Appellant was taken into custody and

he has been confined without bail in the Comal County jail since December 1,

2014.

7. On December 15, 2014, undersigned counsel filed the Defendant’s Motion for

Bail Pending Determination of Motion for New Trial and Pending Appeal.

8. On December 15, 2014, the trial court summarily denied the Motion for Bail.

The trial court’s denial of bail was in direct violation of Article 44.04(a),

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure which provides “[p]ending the

determination of any motion for new trial … the defendant is entitled to be

released on reasonable bail.”

9. Article 44.04(g) provides for the right of appeal from the denial of bail and

further provides that “said appeal shall be given preference by the appellate

court.”

10.On December 23, 2014, undersigned counsel filed a notice of appeal related to

the denial of bail. 1 That notice of appeal was received in this Court on

December 29, 2014.

1. Counsel also filed a general notice of appeal for the determination of guilt. Tex. C. Crim. Proc. art 42.12, sec. 5(b).

Page 2 of 4 11.The reporter’s record from the summary denial of bail was filed in this Court

on December 31, 2014.

12.The district clerk’s record has been requested by undersigned counsel and

said clerk has been notified that this is an expedited appeal pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1. Today, January 20, 2015, counsel again

contacted the Comal County District Clerk and asked that office to file the

clerk’s record to this case with this Court.

13.And Rule 31.2 provides: “[a]n appeal in … a bail proceeding will be heard at

the earliest practicable time.”

14.On December 31, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to expedite this appeal. As

of this morning, January 20, 2015, no action had been taken on that motion.

15.Appellant is statutorily entitled to reasonable bail while he appeals the

determination to enter a finding of guilt. However, bail has been denied and

he has now been confined in the Comal County jail for more than 50 days

despite having received a suspended sentence.

16.Appellant is entitled both by statute and rule to have the issue of bail resolved

by this Court on an expedited basis. However, Appellant’s motion to

expedite the appeal has not been addressed in three weeks.

17.Appellant files this Second Motion to expedite its review of the question of

Page 3 of 4 bail in order that reasonable bail may be set so that Appellant may be released

pending the appeal of the merits of the case, namely the trial court’s

determination to adjudicate guilt.

18.Appellant respectfully requests that this Court set bail in each count of the

indictment at $5,000.00 for a total of $10,000.00.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Charles F. Baird_____________ CHARLES F. BAIRD TBA # 00000045 BAIRD FARRELLY, PLLC 2312 Western Trails Blvd, Suite 102-A Austin, TX 78745 Tel: 512-804-5911 Fax: 512-804-5919 Email: jcfbaird@gmail.law

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document was served on Jennifer A. Tharp, Assistant District Attorney, Comal

District Attorney's Office, on January 20, 2015, via fax.

__/s/ Charles F. Baird_____________ CHARLES F. BAIRD Page 4 of 4

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karl-dean-stahmann-v-state-texapp-2015.