Ex parte Treviño
| Decision Date | 19 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 04-20-00544-CR |
| Citation | 648 S.W.3d 347 |
| Parties | EX PARTE Jorge Amezcua TREVIÑO |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
APPELLANT ATTORNEY: Daniel De La Garza, Law Office of Daniel De La Garza, PLLC, 1800 McCullough Ave., San Antonio, TX 78212, Efrain Torres Jr., Ricardo Ramos Jr., The Ramos & Torres Law Firm, PLLC, 319 Probant, San Antoino, TX 78204.
APPELLEE ATTORNEY: Andrew Warthen, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, 101 W. Nueva St., San Antonio, TX 78205.
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Irene Rios, Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Appellant Jorge Amezcua Treviño was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. While on release, Treviño allegedly violated his release conditions, and the trial court revoked bond. Treviño filed a motion to set bail and a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. At the hearing on the motion to set bail, Treviño objected to the trial court considering any hearsay testimony, but the trial court overruled his objections. At the hearing on Treviño's application for writ of habeas corpus, Treviño argued that less restrictive pretrial conditions would be appropriate. After the hearing, the trial court denied Treviño's application. We grant habeas relief in part and remand.
On August 13, 2020, Appellant Treviño was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after he allegedly held scissors to his estranged wife's throat and assaulted her. He allegedly threatened to kill her and their family if she tried to alert anyone. Bond was set at $20,000, which Treviño posted the same day. He was released without any conditions.
The State moved to modify conditions to prohibit Treviño from contacting his wife and their family, to prohibit him from possessing firearms, and to mandate full GPS house arrest. The trial court granted the conditions.
Treviño requested a modification to the conditions so that he could maintain contact with his wife to continue to run their business together. The trial court granted Treviño's request to modify release conditions, which included removing full house arrest and allowing Treviño to go to his family restaurant, to conduct business with his wife, and to see his children, but not to have any contact with his mother-in-law, not to have any injurious contact with his family, and not to return to his wife's apartment.
After the trial court granted the modification, Treviño allegedly violated the remaining conditions by allegedly going to his wife's apartment more than once, sexually assaulting her, and choking her until she passed out. Warrants issued for Treviño's arrest for the choking assault and to increase bond in the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon case. The State moved for Treviño's bond to be revoked. In support of its motion, the State attached exhibits to include an arrest affidavit for the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon from July 31, 2020, and a computer-generated incident detail report from the choking report on October 6, 2020. The trial court granted the revocation without a hearing.
On October 8, 2020, Treviño was re-arrested, and he moved to reinstate a bond in his aggravated assault case, arguing that his risk of exposure to COVID-19 at the Bexar County Jail was too great. The following week, Treviño filed a second motion to set bond in his aggravated assault case, citing a myriad of health concerns that he complained were being exacerbated or left unaddressed at the jail. A few days later, though its motion was granted, the State filed a First Amended Motion to Revoke Bond that included more attachments, such as the arresting officer's report from October 8, 2020.
At the hearing on Treviño's motion to set bond, Treviño objected to hearsay evidence and asked that the State put on its evidence in support of the motion to revoke bond that the trial court granted two weeks earlier. The State moved to admit exhibits from its motion that included the arrest warrant affidavit from October 6, 2020, and officer reports from October 8, 2020. The trial court admitted the exhibits over Treviño's hearsay objections regarding the affidavit and the officer reports.
The State offered the testimony of Treviño's arresting officer from October 8, 2020, and Treviño argued that the trial court could not consider the officer's testimony regarding the events that led to Treviño's October 8 arrest for felony choking assault against his wife. The trial court overruled his objections, stating,
The detective testified that he is part of the Rapid Response Team of the Repeat Offenders Program and that his lieutenant received an e-mail from a Special Victims Unit detective regarding Treviño's case on October 7, 2020. Based on the e-mail, the detective testified that Treviño was The detective was assigned to execute the warrants and arrest Treviño. The detective confirmed in his testimony that Treviño was the man arrested on October 8, 2020, and that the warrants were for choking and strangulation involving family violence against Treviño's wife and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 Treviño renewed his hearsay objection, but the trial court overruled the objection and affirmed its decision to remand Treviño without bond.
The next day, Treviño filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail, arguing that he was illegally held and that less restrictive pretrial conditions would be appropriate. Treviño argued that the law required the trial court to set a new bond in his case rather than to continue holding him without bond. The trial court disagreed and denied Treviño's application.
Treviño now appeals the trial court's denial.
A trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kniatt v. State , 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ; Ex parte Shires , 508 S.W.3d 856, 860 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.). A finding of an abuse of discretion requires the court to determine that the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. See Ex parte Walsh , 530 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) ; see also Lyles v. State , 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), superseded on other grounds as stated in Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. State , 273 S.W.3d 157, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ; Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. See Ex parte McIntyre , 558 S.W.3d 295, 299 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref'd) (citing Ex parte Wheeler , 203 S.W.3d 317, 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ). "When the record is silent on the reasons for the trial court's ruling or when the trial court makes no explicit fact findings and neither party has timely requested findings and conclusions from the trial court, we imply the necessary fact findings to support the trial court's ruling if they are supported by the record." Ex parte Shires , 508 S.W.3d at 860 (citing State v. Kelly , 204 S.W.3d 808, 818–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ).
Treviño argues that the trial court (1) inappropriately relied on Texas Constitution article I, section 11b and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.152, and (2) relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence to revoke bail and remand Treviño without bond. The State argues that the trial court acted within its discretion under article I, section 11b of the Texas constitution to revoke Treviño's bail and remand him without bond pending trial.
The State based its Motion to Revoke Bond on Article 17.152, which authorizes a trial court to deny bail in a family violence case if the accused violates certain court orders or conditions of bond. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.152 ; Ex parte Gonzalez , No. 02-20-00128-CR, 2020 WL 6325815, at *1 () (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[T]he [Texas] Code of Criminal Procedure authorize[s] a trial court to deny bail pending trial when an accused violates a condition of release related to the safety of the victim."). Treviño argues that Article 17.152 does not apply to him because he was not charged under Penal Code section 25.07,2 which Article 17.152 specifically cites. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.152. Notwithstanding the language of Article 17.152, we may consider other bases to affirm the trial court's ruling if the record supports them. See Turrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) () (citing Valtierra v. State , 310 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ); Vennus v. State , 282 S.W.3d 70, 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ().
The Texas constitution provides that:
Any person who is accused in this state of a felony or an offense involving family violence, who is released on bail pending trial, and whose bail is subsequently revoked or forfeited for a violation of a condition of release may be denied bail pending trial if a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence at a subsequent hearing that the person violated a condition of release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.
TEX. CONST. art. I § 11b. Thus, more generally, a trial court may remand an accused without bond pending trial if the underlying offense involved...
To continue reading
Request your trial