Ex Parte Jermaine Gilbert ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-20-00249-CR
EX PARTE JERMAINE GILBERT, APPELLANT
On Appeal from the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 2020-2387-2, Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding
March 31, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, Jermaine Gilbert, appeals the trial court’s denial of his application for
writ of habeas corpus that sought a reduction in appellant’s bond amount. We affirm the
order of the trial court.
Appellant is charged with the offense of retaliation. He originally bonded out on
the case but, after missing a court date, the trial court increased his bond to $250,000.
After failing to post bond and being detained in the McLennan County Jail awaiting trial,
1
Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West 2013). In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
appellant filed his application for writ of habeas corpus. No evidence was attached to
appellant’s application. The record does not include a response filed by the State. At the
hearing on the application, appellant presented arguments in support of his application
but did not present any evidence. At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied
appellant’s application. Appellant timely appealed this denial. By this appeal, he
contends that the trial court erred by refusing to lower appellant’s bond.
The appellate court reviews a challenge to the excessiveness of bond for an abuse
of discretion. Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2010, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1981)). If the trial court’s decision lies within the zone of reasonable disagreement, the
reviewing court should not disturb the decision. Ex parte Castillo-Lorente, 420 S.W.3d
884, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) The burden is on the applicant
to prove the excessiveness of the bond, Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849, and his
inability to post bond in the amount set, Ex parte Tata, 358 S.W.3d 392, 400 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d).
A habeas applicant must ensure that a sufficient record is presented on appeal to
show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the application. Ex parte
Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Washington v. State, 326
S.W.3d 701, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.).
In the present case, appellant did not offer any evidence to support his claim for
relief. He did not append evidence to his application or offer any evidence at the hearing
on his application. Consequently, appellant did not discharge his burden to prove that
2
the bond set by the trial court was excessive or that he was unable to pay the bond that
was set. As such, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
appellant’s application for habeas corpus relief.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s order denying
appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
3