Ex Parte Allen Christopher Lanclos ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00296-CR
__________________
EX PARTE ALLEN CHRISTOPHER LANCLOS
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 61738
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Allen Christopher Lanclos challenges the trial court’s order
granting, in part, his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction. In
a single appellate issue, Lanclos contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to sufficiently reduce the amount of his bonds in accordance with article
17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 17.151, § 1(1). We affirm the trial court’s order.
BACKGROUND
In August 2020, Lanclos was arrested and charged with three felony counts
of assault on a public servant. On September 1, 2020, the trial court set Lanclos’s
bonds at $750,000 each. On September 11, 2020, Lanclos filed an application for
1
writ of habeas corpus under article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
in which Lanclos argued that the trial court should set appropriate bonds, because he
could not afford his bonds totaling $2,250,000. See id. art. 17.15(4). Lanclos’s
application indicates that he could afford bonds totaling $150,000 or less. Lanclos
attached the affidavit of his wife, Kristy, who averred that she had spoken with two
bonding companies, and both companies refused to post bond for $2,250,000. Kristy
stated that she had to sell property to pay for Lanclos’s attorney, and she and Lanclos
could not afford to post bonds in the amount of $2,250,000.
On October 9, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on Lanclos’s
application for writ of habeas corpus requesting reasonable bonds, and Kristy’s
affidavit was the only evidence introduced regarding the amount of bonds that
Lanclos could afford. Lanclos did not present any evidence regarding his assets and
financial resources. During the hearing, defense counsel indicated that Lanclos could
afford bonds totaling $150,000 and asked the trial court to reduce Lanclos’s bonds
to that amount. The State argued that Lanclos had a violent criminal history, and that
when he committed the current offenses, he violated the conditions of his probation
associated with a prior offense. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court
took the matter under advisement, but the trial court never ruled on the application.
On November 24, 2020, Lanclos filed a second application for writ of habeas
corpus, alleging that his confinement violated article 17.151 because ninety days had
2
elapsed since his arrest without indictment and his three bonds totaling $2,250,000
were beyond his financial means. See id. art. 17.151, § 1(1). According to Lanclos,
he was entitled to either be released on a personal recognizance bond or to a
reduction of his bonds to an affordable amount that he could make to obtain his
release.
On December 18, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on Lanclos’s
application for writ of habeas corpus, during which the State failed to appear.
Defense counsel advised the trial court that Lanclos had been in jail for more than
one hundred days and had not been indicted. Defense counsel did not present any
evidence regarding the amount of bond that Lanclos could afford. The trial court
granted partial relief by reducing Lanclos’s bonds from $750,000 to $500,000 each,
totaling $1,500,000.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
We review a trial court’s decision regarding bail reduction for an abuse of
discretion. See Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte
Smith, 486 S.W.3d 62, 64 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.). “A trial court
abuses its discretion when it applies ‘an erroneous legal standard, or when no
reasonable view of the record could support the trial court’s conclusion under the
correct law and facts viewed in the light most favorable to its legal conclusion.’” Ex
parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d at 64-65 (quoting DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, 497-
3
98 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Guzman v. State, 955
S.W.2d at 85, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
Article 17.151, section 1(1) provides as follows:
A defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation
against him must be released either on personal bond or by reducing
the amount of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the
criminal action for which he is being detained within: (1) 90 days from
the commencement of this detention if he is accused of a felony[.]
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, § 1(1) (emphasis added). Article 17.151
preserves the presumption of innocence by ensuring that an accused, who is untried
and unreleased on bond, will not suffer the incidental punitive effect of incarceration
during any further delay resulting from prosecutorial exigency. Ex parte Smith, 486
S.W.3d at 65. The State bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that it
was ready for trial within the ninety-day time period. Id. The State cannot announce
that it is ready for trial when there is no indictment. Ex parte Castellano, 321 S.W.3d
760, 763 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). When the State is not ready for
trial within ninety days after the accused has been arrested and the accused has
remained incarcerated continuously, article 17.151 requires that the trial court either
release the accused on a personal bond or reduce bail to an amount the accused can
make. Ex parte Carson, 215 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.).
The only evidence in the record regarding Lanclos’s ability to make bond is
Kristy’s affidavit stating that the two bonding companies she spoke with were
4
unwilling to post bond for $2,250,000. Lanclos presented no testimonial or
documentary evidence regarding his assets and financial resources. A bond
reduction is not favored “when the defendant makes vague references to inability to
make bond without detailing his specific assets and financial resources.” Cooley v.
State, 232 S.W.3d 228, 236 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see Ex
parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d 878, 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no
pet.). Based on this record, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that
Lanclos’s evidence regarding his financial circumstances was inadequate and that it
was justified in reducing Lanclos’s total bonds from $2,250,000 to $1,500,000. See
Cooley, 232 S.W.3d at 236; Ex parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d at 883.
Viewing the entire record in favor of the trial court’s ruling, we hold that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to further reduce the amount of
Lanclos’s bonds. See Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d at 428; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 17.151, § 1(1). Lanclos obtained relief when the trial judge reduced the amount
of his bonds by $750,000. Accordingly, we overrule Lanclos’s sole issue and affirm
the trial court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on February 18, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 10, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
5