Ex parte Rubac
| Decision Date | 04 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 66921,No. 3,66921,3 |
| Parties | Ex parte Richard Emil RUBAC |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.
Edward J. Walsh, Dist. Atty. and Ken Anderson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Georgetown, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DAVIS, McCORMICK and TEAGUE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a denial of the trial court to reduce bail pending appeal. Article 44.04(g), V.A.C.C.P. On April 4, 1980, petitioner was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Prior to trial, petitioner was released on a $50,000 bond. On December 19, 1980, a jury convicted petitioner of possession with intent to deliver, methamphetamine, on an indictment alleging possession of methamphetamine, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, and possession of LSD. On January 8, 1981, punishment was assessed at ten years. At sentencing, petitioner gave notice of appeal and requested the right to remain on the previously set $50,000 bond pending appeal. However, the trial court set the appeal bond at $100,000.
On January 15, 1981, the trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's request for a reduction of the $100,000 bond. Petitioner presented evidence that he had complied in every respect with conditions of his previous bonds, and that he had made all court appearances required. Petitioner's background reveals that he is thirty-five years old, holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Texas A&M University, and has no previous convictions. Petitioner was raised in Central Texas, and has lived in Dallas the past twelve years. Petitioner was unemployed at the time of arrest, but has prospective employment if released on bail pending appeal. Appellant also asserts that he has another $50,000 appearance bond on another indictment, and that he presently has, at the most, $3,000 to use for appeal bond in this cause.
The State offered no evidence, but on cross-examination attempted to show petitioner's ability to pay by showing that the increase over the original $50,000 bond would only cost petitioner $7500. In addition, testimony revealed that approximately $45,000 had been seized from petitioner when he was arrested. However, the evidence demonstrates that petitioner's resources are either depleted or are being held subject to forfeiture by the federal or state governments.
Article 17.15, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
The burden of proof is on petitioner for reduction in bail to show that the bail set is excessive. Ex parte August, 552 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
The primary objective of the appeal bond is to secure appellant's apprehension if his conviction is subsequently affirmed. Article 17.15(1), supra; see, Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In considering what constitutes reasonable bail on appeal, certain factors should be considered. The primary factors are the length of the sentence, Mayo v. State, 611 S.W.2d 442 (No. 66,489, February 11, 1981); Ex parte August, supra; and the nature of the offense, Mecom v. United States, 434 U.S. 1340, 98 S.Ct. 19, 54 L.Ed.2d 49 (1977); Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Other supportive data that this Court deems relevant includes: petitioner's work record, family ties, and length of residency, Ex parte Ivey, 594...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Krupps
...the constant review that we give to claims of excessive bail. See Ex parte Davila, 623 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The Supreme Court has used several factors to determine whether a contempt sentence is appropriately within the discretion o......
-
Duncan v. Stephens
...bails. See Maldonado v. State, 999 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)); Ex parte Milburn, 8 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, no pet.). These considerations are also designed to gauge ......
-
Odonnell v. Harris Cnty.
...evidentiary standard for bail-setting hearings. The burden of proof is on a defendant who claims bail is excessive. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ; Ex parte Martinez–Velasco, 666 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.). In reviewing a trial......
-
Ex parte Dupuy
...Const. amend. VIII ; Tex. Const. art. I, § 11. We review a challenge to the excessiveness of bail for abuse of discretion. See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Under this standard, we may not disturb the trial court's decision if it falls within the zone......
-
Table of cases
..., 969 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), §16:62 Ex parte Ross , 522 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), §§13:03, 13:04 Ex parte Rubac , 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981), §§15:12, 15:14 Ex parte Sabur-Smith , 73 S.W.3d 436 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.), §§15:13, 15:14 ......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive condition of bond. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). A defendant must object to a bond condition when it is imposed or he fails to preserve error for appeal. ......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive condition of bond. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). A defendant must object to a bond condition when it is imposed or he fails to preserve error for appeal. ......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive condition of bond. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). A defendant must object to a bond condition when it is imposed or he fails to preserve error for appeal. ......