Estrada v. State, 62970
Decision Date | 27 February 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 62970,62970,2 |
Citation | 594 S.W.2d 445 |
Parties | Alberto ESTRADA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, ROBERTS and CLINTON, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin. The court assessed punishment at five years.
Estrada complains on appeal of certain conditions placed upon his appeal bond pursuant to Article 44.04(c), V.A.C.C.P. 1 He contends that the provision of Article 44.04(c) permitting conditions to be placed upon bail pending appeal is violative of the Constitutions of Texas and of the United States, and further asserts that, even if the provision is constitutional, certain of the conditions placed upon his bond are unreasonable.
We find no authority for the assertion that bail conditions are per se unconstitutional. Addressing that question, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote in a per curiam opinion:
"The defendants cite no authority for this contention and we think the course of the common law in England and the development of the common law and statutory law in the United States demonstrate that the courts have the inherent power to place restrictive conditions upon the granting of bail."
United States v. Smith, 444 F.2d 61 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 977, 92 S.Ct. 1205, 31 L.Ed.2d 253.
The fountainhead of constitutionality of bail conditions is that they be "based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of (the) defendant." Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed.2d 3 (1951). Such conditions may not impinge unreasonably upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 2
We hold that the term "reasonable" in relation to conditions authorized by Article 44.04(c) encompasses these tests, and that the power of the court to impose reasonable conditions on appeal bonds is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of Texas.
The sole remaining question is whether the conditions set by the court were reasonable. The court originally placed the following conditions upon the granting of bail:
After a hearing upon those provisions, the court struck condition (C).
About conditions (G) and (H), appellant's counsel said:
We note also that appellant's continued abstention from heroin is rationally related to the likelihood of his continued appearance in court when necessary, and is probative of his abiding by the law as required by condition (A). Conditions (G) and (H) are reasonable and within the sound discretion of the court.
In Brown v. Chase, 462 F.Supp. 938 (D.C., Vt., 1978), the United States District Court found that a provision of pre-trial bond substantially similar to condition (A) was not unconstitutional, and that violation of the law was probative of the increased likelihood of failure to appear when ordered. We agree.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Cook, 428 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1970), found that restrictions to travel and association far more pervasive than appellant's condition (E) were within the discretion of the court under a federal provision cognate to Section 44.04(c), supra. 3
In overruling a refusal to release an appellant on bail, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conditioned bail upon reporting to a probation officer subject to the same conditions as a probationer, remaining in the jurisdiction of the court except by express permission, continued residence with appellant's wife and children, and obtaining suitable employment. United States v. Harrison, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 405 F.2d 355 (1968). These conditions are as stringent as Estrada's conditions (B), (D), (E) and (F).
In Harrison, the court noted that assured employment is a factor in determining the likelihood of appellant's appearance. We agree.
The same court went even further in Banks v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 414 F.2d 1150 (1969), naming a probation officer, requiring a monthly report...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Anderer
...appeal to question the validity of a condition on bail pending appeal, which was authorized by the 1977 statute, was Estrada v. State 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Cr. App. 1980). Estrada appealed from conditions on his bail pending appeal that required him to leave weekly urine samples to be tested......
-
Dallas v. State
...on bail that directly or indirectly relate to the purpose of assuring the defendant's continued appearance. See Ex parte Estrada, 594 S.W.2d 445, 446-47 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Easton v. Rains, 866 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.App.--Houston [1 st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (holding most conditions of appeal ......
-
Ex parte Davila
...officer at 9:00 a.m. the first Monday each month. Such conditions are reasonable under Article 44.04(d), V.A.C.C.P. Estrada v. State, 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Applying the established criteria to these facts, we conclude that, given the reasonable conditions attached to it, bail is......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...conditions is that they be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of the defendant. Estrada v. State, 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). In Valenciano, appellant had been convicted of indecency with a child. The offense took place in appellant's neighborhood ......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...Dist.] 1985, no pet .). The primary purpose of bond is to ensure the defendant’s presence in court at all proceedings. Estrada v. State, 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). The decision regarding a proper bail amount lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex par......
-
Bail and bond issues
...Dist.] 1985, no pet .). The primary purpose of bond is to ensure the defendant’s presence in court at all proceedings. Estrada v. State, 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). The decision regarding a proper bail amount lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex par......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...Dist.] 1985, no pet .). The primary purpose of bond is to ensure the defendant’s presence in court at all proceedings. Estrada v. State, 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). The decision regarding a proper bail amount lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex par......
-
Bail and bond motions
...1992, pet. ref’d ). The primary purpose of bond is to ensure the defendant’s presence in court at all proceedings. Estrada v. State , 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op .] 1980). The burden of proof is on the party seeking a reduction in bond to show that the existing bond amount is......