Ex Parte: Mark Phillip Quam ( 1991 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-90-318-CR





EX PARTE: MARK PHILLIP QUAM,

APPELLANT

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

NO. 90-222-K26, HONORABLE WILLIAM S. LOTT, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying bail pending appeal. Tex. Code Cr. P. Ann. art. 44.04(g) (Supp. 1991). ⁽¹⁾ Appellant was convicted of possessing more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine, a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (Pamph. 1991). The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years and a $5000 fine.

The record clearly reflects that the district court denied bail based on a finding that good cause exists to believe that appellant is likely to commit another offense while on bail. Tex. Code Cr. P. Ann. art. 44.04(c) (Supp. 1991). Appellant's brief does not discuss whether the court abused its discretion in so finding. Instead, appellant's brief addresses a question not presented: whether there is good cause to believe appellant would not appear when his conviction becomes final.

There is evidence that, while on bail awaiting trial in this cause, appellant met with friends of his codefendant and took from them a quantity of cocaine. When later confronted by the police, appellant turned over the cocaine to them. Given this evidence, this Court cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying bail. Putnam v. State, 582 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Cr. App. 1979); Yates v. State, 679 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1984, pet. ref'd).

The order denying bail pending appeal is affirmed.

[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Kidd]

Affirmed

Filed: March 6, 1991

[Do Not Publish]

1. Appellant characterizes this appeal as one from an order denying relief on writ of habeas corpus, but we believe it is more accurate in this case to say that the appeal reached us pursuant to art. 44.04(g). This is a matter of academic interest only, as the appeal is properly before us in either case. Ex parte Spaulding, 612 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Cr. App. 1981).