Stephen Craig Holland v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 5, 2006
• Docket: 10-06-00016-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00016-CR

Stephen Craig Holland,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the County Court

Falls County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-06541

ORDER

          Stephen Craig Holland filed a motion to reinstate his appeal.

          The motion is granted.  This Court’s opinion dismissing Holland’s appeal dated March 8, 2006 is withdrawn, and the appeal is reinstated.

          The reporter’s record is due within 30 days of the date of this order.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

Opinion withdrawn and appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed April 5, 2006

Do not publish

[CR25]

Ann. art. 17.15 (Vernon Supp. 1999). Article 17.15 lists five factors to consider when determining if bail is excessive. They are:

1) The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

      2) The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.

3) The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.

      4) The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.

5) The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.

Id. Family and community ties, length of residence in the county, prior criminal record, conformity with conditions of previous bail bonds, and aggravating circumstances of the offense should also be considered. Emery, 970 S.W.2d at 145 (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)).

APPLICATION OF FACTORS

      We note first that the record in this bail reduction hearing is not as well developed as we might like to see.

      Back testified that he has never been arrested prior to the charges for which he is requesting reduced bail. He has lived in Navarro County for most of his life, worked as a police officer, and has close ties with the community. His parents are residents of Navarro County and testified that Back could live with them pending trial on the charged offenses. Back and his parents testified that Back would appear at all court hearings.

      Back testified that he tried but was unable to make $250,000 in bail bonds. Back’s father testified that if bail was reduced to a total of $25,000, they would be able to make the bonds.

CONCLUSION

      Taking into consideration each factor listed in Article 17.15 and considering the amount of bail which the undisputed evidence shows Back can make, we hold that the court abused its discretion in setting bail to total $250,000. We sustain the point of error and reverse the order denying habeas corpus relief. We grant the relief sought and hereby reduce bail to $7,000 on the charge of sexual assault of a child and $6,000 on each of the three charges of indecency with a child, a total of $25,000.

                                                                       BILL VANCE

                                                                       Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Gray

          (Justice Gray dissenting)

Reversed and rendered

Opinion delivered and filed November 24, 1999

Do not publish