IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-245-CR

     DONALD ONEAL THREADGILL,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # M93-01853

                                                                                                    

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                    

      Donald Oneal Threadgill attempts an appeal from a speeding conviction affirmed de novo by the Johnson County Court at Law No. 2. Threadgill was ordered to pay a $26 fine and court costs.

      Threadgill has filed numerous documents and briefs in this court contesting jurisdiction of the court and demanding dismissal. His pleas for dismissal are granted and the attempted appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 72.

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 26, 1994

Do not publish

nt:-.5in'>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 (Vernon 2005).

 

  Other pertinent factors include family and community ties, work history, length of residence in the county, prior criminal record, conformity with conditions of prior bonds, and any aggravating circumstances of the offense.  Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849-50; Davis, 147 S.W.3d at 548.  We will review the trial court’s decision in light of the above factors.

            “[B]ail should be set high enough to give reasonable assurance that the defendant will appear at trial.”  Ex parte McCullough, 993 S.W.2d 836, 837 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (quoting Ex parte Brown, 959 S.W.2d 369, 371 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)).  A defendant’s ties to the community and work history bear on the adequacy of bail to give reasonable assurance he will appear.  See McCullough, 993 S.W.2d at 837-38.  Rojas, age 19, lives in Tarrant County (in Fort Worth) and had recently gotten out of high school in Tarrant County.  He had moved out of his parents’ home three to four months before the alleged offenses occurred and was living in a Fort Worth duplex at the time of the offense.  He had been employed at a Fort Worth restaurant.  If Rojas were released on bond, he would live with his parents and try to get his job back.  His 18-year-old girlfriend is due to have their baby in October.  Rojas and his parents testified that they could come up with enough money to afford a bail bond around $50,000.

Bail set in a particular amount becomes “oppressive” when it is “based on the ‘assumption that [the accused cannot] afford bail in that amount and for the express purpose of forcing [the accused] to remain incarcerated pending [trial].’”  McCullough, 993 S.W.2d at 837 (quoting Ex parte Harris, 733 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no pet.)).  The record contains nothing to indicate that the trial court rendered its decision on this basis, especially with the trial court having reduced bail from $1 million to $500,000.

Rojas is accused of planning to and committing an armed robbery of a GameStop store in Burleson (in Johnson County) with two others, shooting a store clerk, and shooting at a police officer responding to the robbery.  Rojas is alleged to have been the gunman, and the other two have bonds set at $250,000.  In considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed, appellate courts have looked to bond amounts in other cases.  See Ex parte Emery, 970 S.W.2d 144, 145-46 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, no pet.).  At the hearing, Rojas’s attorney argued that he was familiar with three Johnson County homicide cases where bail was substantially lower, but the prosecutor was able to distinguish them from Rojas’s case.  On appeal, the State points to our decision in Ex parte Davis, 147 S.W.3d 546, where we held that $1 million bail was excessive for murder defendants and reduced bail to $750,000 and $500,000.

The State asserts that the premeditated armed robbery in which Rojas crossed county lines and the alleged shooting of the clerk and at the officer warrant high bail.  Each of the three felonies that Rojas is accused of carries a potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  The violent nature of the alleged offenses does suggest that a high bail amount is appropriate.  Also, there was testimony that Rojas has three cases pending against him in Tarrant County.

            Although a defendant’s ability to make bail is a factor for consideration, inability to make bail, even to the point of indigence, does not control over the other factors.  Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Davis, 147 S.W.3d at 548.  Rojas and his family could pay for a $50,000 bond.

            After considering the factors of article 17.15 and the record before us, while we consider bail of $500,000 in this case to be unusually high, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in reducing Rojas’s bail to $500,000 and refusing to reduce it to $50,000.  See McCullough, 993 S.W.2d at 839.  Accordingly, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the trial court’s ruling.

 

 

BILL VANCE

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment of the Court, which affirms the trial court’s determination of the amount set for bail.  Chief Justice Gray does not, however, join the Court’s opinion but will not issue a separate opinion.)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 3, 2007

Do not publish

[CR25]