Ex parte Keller, s. 62936

Decision Date06 February 1980
Docket NumberNos. 62936,No. 2,62937,s. 62936,2
Citation595 S.W.2d 531
PartiesEx parte Shirley Ann KELLER. Ex parte Jack Gordon FRANKLIN
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Alvin M. Titus and W. Paul Mewis, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before DOUGLAS, ROBERTS and CLINTON, JJ.

OPINION

CLINTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding wherein the petitioners requested the trial court to reduce the bail set in these causes.

Petitioners have been in custody since August 22, 1979, each having been indicted in three separate cases for the offense of theft by receiving stolen property alleged to be in excess of one million dollars. At the conclusion of the hearing on their applications, the trial court set petitioner Keller's bail in the amount of $100,000 in each cause and set petitioner Franklin's bail in the amount of $200,000 in each cause. It is from these orders that petitioners have perfected this appeal.

Petitioner Franklin presented evidence that he is married, has two children, and has lived in Houston since 1936 save for five years which he spent in the Navy. Petitioner graduated from a Texas University and is self-employed as a remodeling contractor, as he has been since 1954. He was convicted of the offense of auto theft in the State of Louisiana in 1965, serving ten months of a five year sentence in addition to receiving a "suspended sentence" in Houston for the same offense. Franklin testified that he would be able to "get together" some $3,500 in order to post bond in the instant cases.

Petitioner Keller presented evidence that she is married, has two teenage girls, and has lived in Houston all of her life. As her husband is currently serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections as an habitual criminal, her two daughters have been living in the family house by themselves. Keller was employed as a bookkeeper at the time of her arrest. She testified that she had successfully served a five year probated sentence for the offense of forgery in 1969 as well as having served a probated sentence for the misdemeanor offense of shoplifting. Keller was unable to give an approximation of how much money she would be able to raise for bail merely stating that "as far as she knew," she would be unable to raise any funds to post bond.

Each petitioner testified that they would appear in court at any time they are required to. Additionally, Franklin's brother, sister, and a family friend all said that he would appear in court as directed, and that they all would indemnify his bond. Keller's mother, sister, and cousin all testified that she would appear in court as directed, and that they would all indemnify her bond.

We note at the outset that the State presented no testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the theft of the property that each petitioner is alleged to have received, or of the sufficiency of the evidence indicating the likelihood of conviction in any of the causes. The State's evidence consisted of the testimony of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who were involved in negotiating with petitioners to buy allegedly stolen property. The agents reported that they observed Franklin and Keller transfer what appeared to be items of property from Keller's vehicle to Franklin's in a shopping center parking lot.

The trial court initially set each petitioner's bail at $200,000 in each cause. At the conclusion of the evidence noted:

"I have heard that there is in this case, by counsel prior to calling witnesses, that there is property in excess of Nine Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($920,000) that has not been recovered in this case, and I will set the bond on Jack Gordon Franklin at Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) in each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 7, 2022
    ...whether pretrial habeas in Texas provides such opportunity. ODonnell I , 892 F.3d at 156-157 & n.3. But cf. Ex Parte Keller , 595 S.W.2d 531, 532–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ; Ex parte Anderson , No. 01-20-00572-CR, 2021 WL 499080 (Tex. App. Feb. 11, 2021).Significantly, the parties in the in......
  • City of El Paso v. Alvarez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 1996
    ...660-61, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2040-41, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Ex parte Keller, 595 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). On the other hand, a defendant may not use pretrial habeas corpus to assert her constitutional rights to a speedy t......
  • Ex parte Culver
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 1996
    ...not to be tried", which would be significantly undermined by postponement of review until after conviction); Ex parte Keller, 595 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(bail). Under the above authorities, we conclude that Appellant may not utilize pretrial habeas corpus to raise his claims ......
  • Weise v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 19, 2001
    ...App. 1966); Ex parte Matthews, 873 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). 9. Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at 555. 10. Ex parte Keller, 595 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 11. Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Danzinger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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