Ex Parte Anderson

• Decision Date: 11 February 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 01-20-00572-CR,NO. 01-20-00573-CR,NO. 01-20-00574-CR,01-20-00572-CR,01-20-00573-CR,01-20-00574-CR
• Parties: EX PARTE MICHAEL ANTHONY ANDERSON, Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

EX PARTE MICHAEL ANTHONY ANDERSON, Appellant

NO. 01-20-00572-CR

NO. 01-20-00573-CR

NO. 01-20-00574-CR

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

February 11, 2021

On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1680889, 1680892, 1680893

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Michael Anthony Anderson, challenges the trial court's orders in three separate trial court cases denying his pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus.¹ In two issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him habeas relief.

We affirm.

Background

Appellant is charged with three separate felony offenses of driving while intoxicated ("DWI"), third offense.²

April 2019 DWI, Third Offense

Appellant was arrested on April 15, 2019 for the felony offense of DWI, third offense. A Harris County Grand Jury then issued a true bill of indictment, alleging that appellant, on or about April 14, 2019, "unlawfully[] operate[d] a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated." The indictment further alleged that previously, on December 14, 2015, appellant was convicted of the offense of DWI in trial court cause number 2057262 in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 in Harris County, Texas, and on November 21, 2014, appellant was convicted of the offense of DWI in trial cause number 14T2814 in Cobb County State Court in Cobb County, Georgia.³

The trial court set appellant's bail at $35,000. Appellant posted bond and was released from custody. The trial court placed appellant on pretrial community supervision and imposed conditions⁴ on appellant's release on bond, including:

• Appellant "will be supervised by [the] Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections [Department] (HCCSCD)" and "will pay to and through HCCSCD a supervision fee of $25.00 per month and a $2.00 transaction fee for each payment";

• Appellant "shall personally appear in court, on time, every time th[e] case is set on the Court[']s docket";

• Appellant "shall commit no crime and shall not engage in any conduct that could result in his[] arrest";

• Appellant "shall not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a camera-equipped, deep-lung breath analysis mechanism approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety that makes impractical the operation of a motor vehicle if ethyl alcohol is detected in his[] breath. . . . [Appellant] must comply with all required equipment and maintenance service, and . . . comply with testing protocols" (the "Ignition Interlock Device Restriction");

• Appellant shall "submit to DRUG AND ALCOHOL testing" and "pay [a] drug testing fee of $10.00 monthly";

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume alcohol"; and

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume marijuana or any controlled substance or dangerous drug unless obtained pursuant to a lawful prescription for [appellant] issued by a medical doctor. [Appellant] will provide a copy of all such prescriptions to his supervising officer in advance."

Related to the Ignition Interlock Device Restriction imposed by the trial court,⁵ appellant was ordered not to "drive[] or operate a motor vehicle unless it [was] equipped with an ignition interlock device," not to "adjust, tamper with, or attempt to circumvent the [ignition interlock] device," to "comply with all requirements of the ignition interlock program of the monitoring agency," to "provide proof of the ignition interlock device installation to the monitoring agency no later than the 30th day after the date of [appellant's] release from custody," and to "submit the [ignition interlock] device for inspection and recalibration every" thirty days.

On June 6, 2019, the State filed a Bond Condition Violation Report⁶ stating that appellant had violated certain conditions of his release on bond by "using, possessing, or consuming a controlled substance, dangerous drug, marihuana, or alcohol" and failing to pay fees for "drug and alcohol testing" and supervision. The violation report noted that appellant had consumed alcohol on April 26, 2019 and April 27, 2019. The trial court ordered appellant's bond revoked and issued an alias capias for appellant's arrest. The trial court later reinstated appellant's bond, and appellant continued on pretrial community supervision.

On August 19, 2019, the State filed a second Bond Condition Violation Report⁷ stating that appellant had violated certain conditions of his release on bond by "using, possessing, or consuming a controlled substance, dangerous drug, marihuana, or alcohol," failing to pay fees for "drug and alcohol testing" and supervision, "driving a vehicle [that was] not equipped with an ignition interlock device," and "being charged with a new . . . felony offense." The second violation report noted that on August 18, 2019, appellant was arrested for a new felony offense of DWI, third offense,⁸ and appellant had been driving a car that was "not equipped with [an] ignition interlock device."

The trial court ordered appellant's bond revoked, issued an alias capias for appellant's arrest, and set appellant's bail at $30,000. After appellant posted bond, he was released from custody. The trial court again placed appellant on pretrial community supervision and imposed amended conditions⁹ on appellant's release on bond, including:

• Appellant shall "submit to electronic monitoring . . . to be installed within 3 calendar days of [his] release on bond. [Appellant] must sign any required agreements, comply with all required equipment and maintenance services, and comply with monitoring protocols . . . . [Appellant] will observe an initial curfew from 6:00 PM until 6:00 AM, seven days per week."

• Appellant "will be supervised by" HCCSCD and "will pay to and through HCCSCD a supervision fee of $25.00 per month and a $2.00 transaction fee for each payment";

• Appellant "shall personally appear in court, on time, every time th[e] case is set on the Court[']s docket";

• Appellant "shall commit no crime and shall not engage in any conduct that could result in his[] arrest";

• Appellant "shall not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a camera-equipped, deep-lung breath analysis mechanism approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety that makes impractical the operation of a motor vehicle if ethyl alcohol is detected in his[] breath. . . . [Appellant] must comply with all required equipment and maintenance service, and . . . comply with testing protocols";

• Appellant shall "submit to DRUG AND ALCOHOL testing" and "pay [a] drug testing fee of $10.00 monthly";

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume alcohol"; and

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume marijuana or any controlled substance or dangerous drug unless obtained pursuant to a lawful prescription for [appellant] issued by a medical doctor. [Appellant] will provide a copy of all such prescriptions to his supervising officer in advance."

On May 13, 2020, after subsequent violations of his bond conditions and a motion filed by the State to revoke appellant's bond, the trial court revoked appellant's bond, ordered appellant "remanded to the custody of the sheriff," and set appellant's bail at $100,000 for the April 14, 2019 DWI felony offense. Appellant remains in custody for this offense.

August 2019 DWI, Third Offense

Appellant was arrested on August 18, 2019 for a second felony offense of DWI, third offense. A Harris County Grand Jury then issued a true bill of indictment, alleging that appellant, on or about August 18, 2019, "unlawfully[] operate[d] a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated." The indictment also alleged that previously, on December 14, 2015, appellant was convicted of the offense of DWI in the trial court cause number 2057262 in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 in Harris County, and on January 17, 2014, appellant was convicted of the offense of DWI in trial cause number 14T2814 in Cobb County State Court in Cobb County.¹⁰

The trial court set appellant's bail at $25,000. Appellant posted bond and was released from custody. The trial court placed appellant on pretrial community supervision and imposed conditions¹¹ on appellant's release on bond, including:

• Appellant "will be supervised by" HCCSCD;

• Appellant "shall commit no crime and shall not engage in any conduct that could result in his[] arrest";

• Appellant "shall not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a camera-equipped, deep-lung breath analysis mechanism approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety that makes impractical the operation of a motor vehicle if ethyl alcohol is detected in his[] breath. . . . [Appellant] must comply with all required equipment and maintenance service, and . . . comply with testing protocols";

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume alcohol";

• Appellant "must not use, possess, or consume marijuana or any controlled substance or dangerous drug unless obtained pursuant to a lawful prescription for [appellant] issued by a medical doctor. [Appellant] will provide a copy of all such prescriptions to his supervising officer in advance"; and

• Appellant shall "submit to electronic monitoring . . . to be installed within 3 calendar days of [his] release on bond. [Appellant] must sign any required agreements, comply with all required equipment and maintenance services, and comply with monitoring protocols . . . . [Appellant] will observe an initial curfew from 6:00 PM until 6:00 AM, seven days per week."

On November 7, 2019, the State filed a third Bond Condition Violation Report¹² stating that appellant had violated certain conditions of his release on bond by "failing to comply with [his] curfew requirements." The third violation report noted that appellant had violated his curfew on October 29, 2019. The trial court did not revoke appellant's bond and ordered that appellant's pretrial community supervision continue.

On December 4, 2019, the State filed a fourth Bond Condition Violation Report¹³ stating that appellant had violated...