Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 21 February 2013
• Docket Number: NO. 01-13-00048-CR,01-13-00048-CR
• Parties: BRANDON EUGENE WILSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

BRANDON EUGENE WILSON, Appellant

v.THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 01-13-00048-CR

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Opinion issued February 21, 2013

On Appeal from the 178th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial CourtCase No. 1372430

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an interlocutory appeal from a bail proceeding.SeeTEX. R. APP. P. 31.AppellantBrandon Wilson has been charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, fraudulent transfer of a motor vehicle, theft, andburglary of a habitation.SeeTEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 30.02(a),31.03,32.34 (West 2011);TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d)(West 2008).His pretrial bond was set at $140,000 in aggregate, with $100,000 set as bail for his drug possession charge.He filed a motion to reduce bail, which was denied by the trial court.Wilson appeals from the order denying his motion.SeeTEX. R. APP. P. 31.We affirm.

Background

Wilson was arrested in July 2010 and charged with burglary of a habitation.The State alleged that on or about July 19, 2010, Wilson "did then and there unlawfully, with intent to commit an assault, enter a habitation owned by" another and "he used and exhibited a deadly weapon, namely, a FIREARM, during the commission of said offense."The case was assigned to the 178th District Court, and bail was set at $30,000.Wilson spent several months in custody until his family was able to obtain sufficient funds to enable him to post bond.After he posted bond, Wilson was released.

On February 29, 2012, while still free on bond for the burglary charge, Wilson was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.The State alleged that on or about February 29, 2012, he"did then and there unlawfully, knowingly possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance,namely, COCAINE, weighing more than 4 grams and less than 200 grams by aggregate weight."

In addition to the drug charge, Wilson was arrested in connection with outstanding warrants for charges pending against him for the theft and fraudulent transfer of a motor vehicle.The State alleged that Wilson did, on or about January 16, 2012, "unlawfully, appropriate by acquiring and exercising control over property, namely, A MOTOR VEHICLE, owned by [Complainant] of the value of over twenty thousand dollars and under one hundred thousand dollars, with intent to deprive the Complainant of the property."The State further alleged that then Wilson did "unlawfully accept possession of a motor vehicle from [Complainant], with a value of less than twenty thousand dollars, knowing that the vehicle was subject to a security interest and lien, and then transferred the vehicle to third party without firsts [sic] obtaining written authorization from the vehicle's secured creditor and lien holder."

All of these new charges were assigned to the 178th District Court.Initially, no bail was set in the theft and fraudulent transfer cases, but bail was set at $20,000 in the drug possession case.Bail was subsequently set at $5,000 in the each of the theft and fraudulent transfer cases, and the bail in the possession case was raised to $100,000.In sum, Wilson's cumulative bail for the four pending charges is now set at $140,000.

On November 16, 2012, Wilson filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court.In his application, he alleged that he is a resident of Harris County, Texas, and that he and all his family members reside in and around Houston.He alleged that they would attest that he is not a flight risk.He claims that he is unable to post bond for the $140,000 bail amount, and he remains incarcerated in the Harris County jail.

On January 4, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on Wilson's application.Wilson presented one witness—his mother, Linda Marshall.She testified that their family had difficulty in collecting the $3,000 they had used to post bond for his initial burglary charge.She further testified that Wilson has no savings, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, or real estate.His only personal property is an inoperative car valued at approximately $500.When he was released on bail previously, Wilson worked and was able to pay his own living expenses.His mother testified that the family could possibly assemble, at most, $3,000 more, which would be sufficient to post a bond covering an additional $30,000 in bail.She believed that the bond company would reinstate his original bond for the burglary case, so Wilson could post bond if the bail for the three charges of theft, fraudulent transfer, and possession of cocaine was no more than $30,000.

Wilson also presented evidence in an attempt to establish that he would have a credible defense to each of the charges against him.Regarding the burglarycharge from 2010, he presented his cousin's sworn statement that Wilson was watching her children on the day of the burglary.The man charged with committing the burglary with Wilson, who pleaded guilty to the crime, stated that Wilson did not accompany him during the burglary and that he did not see Wilson on the day in question.

Regarding the theft and fraudulent transfer of a vehicle charges, Wilson's mother testified that he had not stolen the car in question.Instead, Wilson had rented the car to go on a family trip to Mississippi.His mother testified that she saw Wilson return the car to the rental company's parking lot.A receipt for the car rental showing that Wilson had paid for and returned the car was introduced as an exhibit.Wilson also introduced the offense report for the incident.In it, the man who bought the fraudulently transferred car failed to identify Wilson in a photo array as the person who sold him the car.

With respect to the cocaine charge, Wilson contends that he has an illegal-search defense because the police had "no reason" for pulling over the car which he was driving.Wilson offered a statement of the car's passenger to support this contention, and his mother testified there was no stop sign at the intersection where he was pulled over, although the police officer stated that he stopped the car because it passed a stop sign without stopping.

The State argued that Wilson's bail amount was proper because he had committed three new offenses while released on bond for the burglary charge.The mother's story that she had seen Wilson return the car was called into question because employees of the rental company attested that the car was not returned.The State also referred to a voluntary statement by a witness, Bradley Rhodes, who stated that he had worked with Wilson to steal and fraudulently transfer the car.Another witness corroborated Rhodes's statement that Wilson was involved in the fraudulent transfer.Based on these factors, the State argued that Wilson is a danger to society and requested that the bail remain the same for the safety of the community.

Wilson's counsel requested that bail for the drug charge be reduced from $100,000 to $20,000.The trial court denied habeas corpus relief and the request to reduce bail.The court continued to set bail at $100,000 for the drug charge in the interest of protecting the public safety from further criminal actions.Wilson filed notice of appeal on the same day.

Analysis

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."U.S. CONST. amend. VIII;Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365, 92 S. Ct. 479, 484(1971)(applyingEighth Amendment prohibitionof excessive bail to the States).Likewise, the Bill of Rights contained within the Texas Constitution provides that "[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law."TEX. CONST. art. I, § 11.The Texas Bill of Rights further specifies that "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ."Id., art. I, § 13.

The standard for reviewing whether excessive bail has been set is whether the trial court abused its discretion.SeeEx parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50(Tex. Crim. App.1981)(reviewing bail pending appeal for abuse of discretion);Cooley v. State, 232 S.W.3d 228, 233(Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.]2007, no pet.);Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588, 592(Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.]2010, no pet.).In the exercise of its discretion, a trial court should consider the following factors in setting a defendant's bail before trial:

1.The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

2.The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.

3.The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.

4.The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.

5.The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(West 2005);seeLudwig v. State, 812 S.W.2d 323, 324(Tex. Crim. App.1991);Montalvo, 315 S.W.3d at 592.A defendant carries the burden of proof to establish that bail is excessive.Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849;In re Hulin, 31 S.W.3d 754, 759(Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.]2000, no pet.).In reviewing a trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not intercede as long as the trial court's ruling is at least within the zone of reasonable disagreement.Cooley, 232 S.W.3d at 234;Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 573(Tex. App.—Austin2002, pet. ref'd)(citingMontgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391(Tex. Crim. App.1991)).We acknowledge, however, that an abuse-of-discretion review in this context requires more of the appellate court than simply...