Ex Parte Steven Rolan ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00276-CR
EX PARTE STEVEN ROLAN
From the 249th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-F201900770
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Steven Rolan filed a pre-trial “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
Article 11.40 of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure” in the trial court on June 17, 2021,
seeking to be discharged from confinement. Because the trial court did not err in denying
Rolan’s writ application, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Rolan was arrested in this case on July 18, 2019, and bail was set at $125,000.00.
One month later, Rolan was indicted on three counts of indecency with a child by sexual
contact. In its order denying Rolan’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court
stated that Rolan was claiming relief under articles 7.08 and 7.09 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure because Rolan’s pretrial incarceration had exceeded one year from
the date of his initial arrest. The record supports the trial court’s statement. After
reviewing the application and the court’s file, the trial court found that Rolan was not
entitled to relief and denied the writ application without a hearing on October 6, 2021.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Rolan argues in his sole issue that the trial court erred in denying relief
under articles 7.03, 7.08, and 7.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. As an
applicant for a writ of habeas corpus, Rolan has the burden to establish his entitlement to
relief by a preponderance of the evidence. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006); Ex parte Jarreau, 623 S.W.3d 468, 471 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020,
pet. ref’d). We generally review the trial court's ruling on a pretrial application for a writ
of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664; Jarreau, 623
S.W.3d at 472. However, when, as here, the resolution of the ultimate issue turns on the
application of purely legal standards, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. Ex parte
Martin, 6 S.W.3d 524, 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Jarreau, 623 S.W.3d at 472.
Chapter 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the procedures taken before
a magistrate to prevent offenses. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ch. 7. Article 7.01 provides
that whenever a magistrate is informed that an offense is about to be committed, the
magistrate shall immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused and the accused
shall be brought before the magistrate. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC art. 7.01.
Article 7.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
When the accused has been brought before the magistrate, he shall hear
proof as to the accusation, and if he be satisfied that there is just reason to
apprehend that the offense was intended to be committed, or that the
threat was seriously made, he shall make an order that the accused enter
into bond in such sum as he may in his discretion require, conditioned that
he will not commit such offense, and that he will keep the peace toward
the person threatened or about to be injured, and toward all others named
Ex parte Rolan Page 2
in the bond for any period of time, not to exceed one year from the date
of the bond. The magistrate shall admonish the accused that if the accused
violates a condition of the bond, the court, in addition to ordering forfeiture
of the bond, may punish the accused for contempt under Section 21.002(c),
Government Code.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 7.03 (emphasis added).
Articles 7.08 and 7.09 are relevant when a person brought before the magistrate
under Chapter 7, again, regarding the prevention of offenses, does not give a bond.
Article 7.08 provides, “If the defendant fail to give bond, he shall be committed to jail for
one year from the date of the first order requiring such bond.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC art.
7.08. Article 7.09 provides, “A defendant committed for failing to give bond shall be
discharged by the officer having him in custody, upon giving the required bond, or at the
expiration of the time for which he has been committed.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC art. 7.09.
Because the offenses, if any, have already occurred, in fact he has already been
indicted for the alleged offenses, articles 7.03, 7.08, and 7.09 are not applicable in this
proceeding. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Rolan’s application for
writ of habeas corpus, and Rolan’s sole issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Rolan’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s First
Amended Order, signed on October 6, 2021, which denies Rolan’s Application for Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Ex parte Rolan Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 16, 2022
Do not publish
[OT06]
Ex parte Rolan Page 4