Davis v. State

Decision Date22 February 2002
Docket NumberNo. 06-02-00012-CR.,06-02-00012-CR.
Citation71 S.W.3d 844
PartiesLarry Donnell DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Ebb B. Mobley, Longview, for appellant.

Andy Porter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Longview, for appellee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., GRANT and ROSS, JJ.

OPINION

WILLIAM J. CORNELIUS, Chief Justice.

Larry Donnell Davis appeals from an order increasing his bond pending appeal.Davis was convicted in the underlying offense for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.Sentence was imposed on September 12, 2001.The trial court set an appeal bond at $15,000.00, and Davis was released pending appeal.His appeal from that conviction is pending before this Court.

On December 19, 2001, Davis was arrested for possession of cocaine, possession of marihuana, and criminal trespass.The surety on Davis' bond applied for a capias to surrender him because of his arrest and his alleged failure to meet a financial obligation.Davis was rearrested, and the State asked for reconsideration of his appeal bond.The trial court held a hearing, at which the State asked the court to raise the bond amount to $50,000.00.The trial court set bond at $100,000.00.

The Legislature has provided an explicit method for a defendant to appeal from an order entered by the trial court regarding the right to bail pending an appeal.Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.04(g)(Vernon Supp.2002).Article 44.04 provides for a preferential appeal for complaints about the court's action in denying bail or setting excessive bail pending appeal.Id.This appeal is separate from the appeal of the conviction and punishment, and it must be perfected by a separate notice of appeal, as was done in the present case.SeeEx parte Enriquez,2 S.W.3d 362, 363(Tex.App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding).1

In his single point of error, Davis contends that the trial court erred in setting his appeal bond at $100,000.00, an amount he testified he could not afford, and in adding conditions to his bond that increased the financial burden on him.The appellant's ability to make a particular level of bond, however, is one of seven factors relevant to appeal bonds articulated by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Davila,623 S.W.2d 408, 410(Tex. Crim.App.1981).The factors include: punishment assessed; nature of the offense; appellant's work record and ties to the community; appellant's prior criminal record; appellant's conformity with previous bond conditions and other outstanding bonds appellant may have; and appellant's ability to make a particular level of bond.

The Court has also directed that we are to consider Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15(Vernon Supp.2002), which lists the following additional factors relevant to determining the appropriate amount of bail: The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with; the amount of bail shall not be made an instrument of oppression; the ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken on this point; and the future safety of a victim of the offense and the community shall be considered.

We are to review a trial court's determination of an appeal bond under an abuse of discretion standard.Ex parte Spaulding,612 S.W.2d 509, 511(Tex.Crim. App.1981);Molina v. State,998 S.W.2d 302, 304(Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.)...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • Duran v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2002
    ... ...         The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA") was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1984, see Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act, 7A-2 U.L.A. 266, 267 Historical Notes (1999); Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 24.010 Historical Note, ... ...
  • McClain v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 2008
    ...appeal "is separate from the appeal of the conviction and punishment, and it must be perfected by a separate notice of appeal." Davis v. State, 71 S.W.3d 844, 845 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.); see also Faerman v. State, 966 S.W.2d 843, 848 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 2013
    ...excessive in light of the number of offenses alleged while Wilson was on bond pending resolution of other criminal charges. See Davis v. State, 71 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (affirming $100,000 appeal bail amount for defendant who was arrested for possession of coca......
  • Chtay v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 2014
    ...decision setting bond pending appeal for an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Dueitt, 529 S.W.2d 531, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Davis v. State, 71 S.W.3d 844, 845-46 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.). It is Chtay's burden to show that the amount of bond is excessive. See Ex parte Benefield,......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT