Ex Parte Brian Back ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • Ex Parte Brian Back






      IN THE

    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


    No. 10-99-266-CR


    EX PARTE BRIAN BACK

     


    From the 13th District Court

    Navarro County, Texas

    Trial Court # 99-00-09156-CV

    DISSENTING OPINION

          The appellant ask us to reduce his bail to the amount the evidence shows he can afford to pay. At a very brief hearing evidence of only some of the elements listed in Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.15 was presented. The trial court refused to reduce the amount of bail. Based upon the record before us and the factors to be considered by the trial court, I find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

          The comparison of the amounts of bail set in one case versus another is very difficult for a reviewing court and should be done with great caution. First, the record in the other cases are obviously not in front of us and we have no evidence in this record regarding whether or not the allegations of the alleged offenses are comparable. Second, the defendant in this case wants us to compare his bail to the amount of bail on charges of capital murder and other violent crimes. The defendant argues the alleged offenses committed against children were not violent crimes. I disagree. Lastly, the defendant argues that the nature of the alleged offenses suggest that the bail should be less than bail for what he characterizes as violent crimes. Again, I must disagree. Another, and more important aspect of the nature of the crime is the likelihood of repetition on the same or new victims. Crimes of a sexual nature committed against children are generally conceded as being of a repetitive nature. This is the general theory behind the sexual predator laws. Accordingly, on the weighing of factors such as nature of the offense and protection of the victim and community, the trial court should be accorded wide latitude. After all, it is the trial court that has the entire file regarding the alleged offenses, the contents of which he can take judicial notice, and can observe the demeanor of the witnesses with an eye towards evaluating their credibility.

            I would not hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce bail to the amount the defendant could afford to pay or to any other amount less than that at which it was set. I would affirm the trial court’s determination of bail.

     

                                                                           TOM GRAY

                                                                           Justice


    Opinion delivered and filed November 24, 1999

    Do not publish

    is guilt on the original charge. No specific complaint as to the State's lack of due diligence was made. Because the court had jurisdiction and Simmons did not properly preserve his complaint, we overrule his point of error. Chambers v. State, 903 S.W.2d 21, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Butler v. State, 872 S.W.2d 227, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S. Ct. 1115 (1995); Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (complaint raised on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial).

               The judgment is affirmed.

                 

                                                                                     BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

                                                                                     Justice


    Before Justice Cummings,

              Justice Vance, and

              Justice McDonald (Retired)

    Affirmed

    Opinion delivered and filed September 11, 1996

    Do not publish

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-99-00266-CR

Filed Date: 11/24/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2015