Danny Wayne Alcoser v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
    ________________________
    No. 07-18-00032-CR
    ________________________
    DANNY WAYNE ALCOSER, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    On Appeal from the 19th District Court
    McLennan County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2016-1261-C1 (Counts I, II & III); Honorable Ralph T. Strother, Presiding
    January 23, 2020
    ORDER ON MOTION FOR REASONABLE BAIL PENDING APPEAL
    Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
    On December 20, 2019, this court reversed Appellant’s convictions for the offenses
    of assault family violence, endangering a child, and interference with emergency request
    for assistance and remanded the causes to the trial court for a new trial. See Alcoser v.
    State, No. 07-18-00032-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 11107, at *2, __S.W.3d __ (Tex.
    App.—Amarillo Dec. 20, 2019, no pet. h.). Pending before this court is Appellant, Danny
    Wayne Alcoser’s motion to set reasonable bail pursuant to article 44.04(h) of the Texas
    Code of Criminal Procedure. The State did not file a response to the motion. We grant
    the motion.
    Article 44.04(h) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that upon
    reversal of a conviction, a defendant is entitled to release on reasonable bail, regardless
    of the length of term of imprisonment, pending final determination of the appeal by the
    State or defendant on petition for discretionary review. If a defendant requests bail before
    a petition for discretionary review has been filed, the court of appeals determines the
    amount of bail. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.04(h) (West 2018).
    Because Appellant has filed his motion requesting bail prior to the filing of a petition
    for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, this court is tasked with
    setting the amount of bail. 
    Id. Article 17.15
    of the Code sets factors for guiding this court
    in setting a reasonable bail. Those factors are as follows:
    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 2015).
    2
    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in weighing the primary objective of bail as
    security to apprehend an appellant if his conviction is subsequently affirmed, added more
    factors to consider in setting reasonable bail. See Ex parte Rubac, 
    611 S.W.2d 848
    , 849-
    50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Those factors include (1) the length of the sentence; (2) the
    nature of the offense; (3) work history; (4) family and community ties; (5) length of
    residency; (6) ability to make bond; (7) criminal history; (8) conformity with previous bond
    conditions; (9) existence of other outstanding bonds; and (10) aggravating factors
    involved in the offense. See 
    id. See also
    Montalvo v. State, 
    786 S.W.2d 710
    , 711 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1989) (per curiam).
    According to Appellant’s motion, reasonable bail would be the amount set for his
    pretrial bail which was set by the trial court at $35,000 ($25,000 for assault family violence,
    $5,000 for endangering a child, and $5,000 for interference with emergency request for
    assistance). Conditions of his pretrial bond included that he not communicate with or be
    near the complainant and comply with a curfew, which he claims to have followed.
    Because the State has not filed a reply challenging the suggested amounts, we give great
    weight to the trial court’s judgment in setting pretrial bail. That being said, because we
    are setting bail following a prior conviction that has been reversed, certain factors are
    before this court that were not before the trial court, as discussed above.
    Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s motion for reasonable bail and hereby set bail in
    the amount of $75,000, pending final determination of his appeal. We order that Appellant
    be released from incarceration upon his posting of bail in the amount of $75,000, subject
    to the same terms and conditions as previously imposed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 51.2(c)(1)
    3
    (noting that upon reversing a conviction for a new trial, a defendant in custody who is
    entitled to bail “must be released upon giving bail”).
    It is so ordered.
    Per Curiam
    Do not publish.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-18-00032-CR

Filed Date: 1/23/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/24/2020