Ex parte Plumb, 63400
Decision Date | 19 March 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 63400,63400,1 |
Citation | 595 S.W.2d 544 |
Parties | Ex parte Donald Ray PLUMB |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James R. Moriarty and Dean J. Johnson, Houston, for appellant.
James H. Keeshan, Dist. Atty., and William H. Behler, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Conroe, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and ODOM and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order entered in habeas corpus proceedings in the 221st District Court setting bail on a three-count indictment at $150,000 involving the possession, manufacture and possession with intent to manufacture and deliver a controlled substance, namely: methamphetamine.
It appears after certain searches by virtue of search warrants the appellant was arrested and held without bond, although the record is not developed as well as it might have been. On October 12, 1979, the appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. On the same date, he was indicted. In said application he alleged he was being held without bail by a non-judicial assessment of probable cause.
On October 16, 1979, the court conducted a hearing on his habeas corpus application at the conclusion of which the court found probable cause and set bail at $150,000. Notice of appeal was given.
On appeal appellant raises several grounds relating to the finding of probable cause that an offense or offenses have been committed. At the habeas corpus hearing the State introduced a three-count indictment against the appellant charging him with (1) possession, (2) possession with intent to manufacture and deliver, and (3) manufacture of a controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine. The return of an indictment establishes probable cause as a matter of law. Ex parte Preston, 533 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The question of probable cause to hold appellant has been rendered moot. Ex parte Sellers, 516 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ex parte White, 486 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1
With regard to appellant's claim that the bail assessed is excessive, we note that Article 17.15, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
The burden of proof in the habeas corpus hearing was upon the appellant. Holliman v. State, 485 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Clark, 537 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
Appellant, a self-employed jeweler, testified that he could make a $5,000 but not a $20,000 bond. He testified that his 1978 income was about $15,000 and that he owed the government $400 on his income tax. He related he had just purchased some property in the Conroe area and had made a $1,000 down payment. He also related that he had purchased some property near Livingston with only a small amount invested. He stated he owned a 1969 Ford van, 1972 Pontiac and two Harley Davidson motorcycles. He admitted that he had jewelry for which he had paid $40,000 to $50,000 and jewelry equipment for which he paid $10,000. He later testified that the vast majority of jewelry had been turned over to his attorney as collateral for his fee, and that if sold the jewelry would probably only bring $5,000 to $6,000.
It is well established that the ability or inability of an accused to make bail does not, alone, control in determining the amount of bail. Ex parte Clark...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dees v. State
...Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (Pre-trial bail set at $50,000.00 (where offense was delivery of cocaine; Ex parte Plumb, 595 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (Pre-trial bail set at $50,000.00 where offense was possession, delivery, and manufacture of Bail is set at $40,000.00. ......
-
Garza v. State, 13-90-339-CR
...the district court's declaration of mistrial. The burden of proof in a habeas corpus hearing is on the petitioner. Ex parte Plumb, 595 S.W.2d 544, 545 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). We hold that appellant has failed to prove that jeopardy barred his second trial. The trial court's order denying appel......
-
State v. Rhodes
...prima facie burden by introducing into evidence (1) the sheriff's return, and (2) the indictment or information. See Ex parte Plumb, 595 S.W.2d 544, 545 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Only then does the burden shift to the defendant to prove that the subsequent criminal prosecution by the State puts ......
-
Ex parte Jones, 10-18-00387-CR
...an applicant in a bail reduction proceeding. See Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Ex parte Plumb, 595 S.W.2d 544, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Consequently, the applicant in a habeas proceeding or on appeal has the burden to prove that bail is excessive. See......