Rojas v. State

830 S.W.2d 679, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1598, 1992 WL 137817
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 22, 1992·No. No. 04-90-00273-CR·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE BAIL PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF APPEAL

CHAPA, Justice.

In an unpublished opinion, appellant’s conviction was reversed by this court, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. Rojas v. State, No. 04-90-273-CR (Tex. App. — San Antonio, delivered January 31, 1992). No motion for rehearing or petition for discretionary review was filed. Mandate issued on March 24, 1992. On March 26, 1992, appellant filed a motion for reasonable bail pending final determination of appeal pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.04(h).

The question we are faced with is whether article 44.04(h) authorizes a court of appeals to set bail when the request for bail is made after mandate issues. We hold that it does not.

The statute provides:

If a conviction is reversed by a decision of a Court of Appeals, the defendant, if in custody, is entitled to release on reasonable bail, regardless of the length of term of imprisonment, pending final determination of an appeal by the state or [680]*680the defendant on a motion for discretionary review. If the defendant requests bail before a petition for discretionary review has been filed, the Court of Appeals shall determine the amount of bail_ The defendant’s right to release under this subsection attaches immediately on the issuance of the Court of Appeals’ final ruling as defined by Tex. Cr.App.R. 209(c).1

Art. 44.04(h).

As we read article 44.04(h), it appears that the legislature intended to provide a way for appellants whose convictions have been reversed to be released on bail before their cases are final on appeal. This is clear from the statute’s language that such an appellant is “entitled to release on reasonable bail ... pending final determination of an appeal by the state or the defendant on a motion for discretionary review.” Id. (emphasis added).2

Here, appellant was sentenced to ninety-nine years of confinement. The trial court was not authorized to release him on bail pending appeal. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. art. 44.04(b). After our opinion issued reversing his conviction, appellant was entitled to have this court set bail pending final disposition of the appeal so long as the request was made before a petition for discretionary review had been filed. Art. 44.04(h).

Once mandate issues, however, the rules of appellate procedure state:

When the judgment of the appellate court reverses the judgment of the trial court and grants a new trial to the defendant, the cause shall stand as it would have stood in case the new trial had been granted by the trial court, and if in custody and entitled to bail the defendant shall be released upon his giving bail.

TEX.R.APP.P. 87(b)(2). When a trial court grants a new trial, the case is restored to its position before the former trial. Rule 32. Of course, at that point, this court does not set bail; pretrial bail is a matter for the trial court in which the case is pending under indictment. Art. 17.21.

After reading article 44.04(h) in conjunction with the rules of appellate procedure, we conclude that the legislature created a window in which this court may set bail following the reversal of a conviction. We may set bail after the opinion issues, if requested before a petition for discretionary review is filed and before mandate issues. Once the mandate issues, however, release on bail must be sought from the trial court authorized to grant pretrial bail. See art. 17.21. This is consistent with the expressed purpose of article 44.04(h), which is for bail pending final determination of the appeal.

Accordingly, the motion to set reasonable bail pending final determination of appeal is denied.

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

Rojas v. State, 830 S.W.2d 679, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1598, 1992 WL 137817 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992).

830 S.W.2d 679 (Rojas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Antonio Santos v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015