Ex Parte Allen Christopher Lanclos

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00205-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 release him on a personal recognizance bond or 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 reverse the trial
court’s order and remand the case for immediate further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
1
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
Writ of Habeas Corpus under article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, in which Lanclos argued that the trial court should set an appropriate
bond, because he could not afford his bonds totaling $2,250,000. See id. art. 17.151.
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 a reasonable bond, and Kristy’s
affidavit was the only evidence introduced regarding the amount of bonds that
Lanclos could afford. 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. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court took the
matter under advisement, but the trial court never ruled on the application.
2
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 elapsed since his arrest without indictment and his three bonds totaling
$2,250,000 were beyond his financial means. See id. 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 to 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. This court affirmed the trial court’s order reducing Lanclos’s
total bonds to $1,500,000. Ex parte Lanclos, No. 09-20-00296-CR, 2021 WL
895837, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 10, 2021) (mem. op., not designated
for publication), rev’d, 624 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The Court of
Criminal Appeals reversed our decision affirming the trial court’s habeas order
reducing Lanclos’s bonds on the grounds that this Court failed to require Lanclos’s
release on bonds that he could afford. Ex parte Lanclos, 624 S.W.3d at 926-27.
3
While his case was on appeal, Lanclos filed another Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under article 17.151, in which he requested release on a personal
recognizance bond. Lanclos attached an additional affidavit executed by Kristy, in
which she averred that they were unable to afford a bond in the amount of $1,500,000
and that she was personally unable to afford a bond in excess of $30,000. On remand,
the trial court conducted a bond hearing, during which defense counsel requested the
court to either set a personal recognizance bond or to reduce Lanclos’s bonds to
$30,000 “in accordance with the affidavit[.]” The trial court entered an order setting
Lanclos’s bonds totaling $150,000. Lanclos appealed and remains in custody.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
We review a trial court’s decision made during a habeas proceeding regarding
the reduction of bail 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, 497-98 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled on
other grounds by Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d at 85, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
4
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 his 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 attendant to prosecutorial exigency. Ex parte Smith, 486
S.W.3d at 65 (quoting Ex parte Jones, 803 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991)). The State bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that it was ready
for trial within the ninety-day time period. Id. (quoting Ex parte Ragston, 422
S.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)). 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 throughout the period, 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.); see also Ex parte Lanclos, 624 S.W.3d at 927.
5
If the trial court chooses to reduce the amount of bail required, it must reduce
it to an amount the record reflects the accused can afford. Ex parte Lanclos, 624
S.W.3d at 927. Article 17.151 does not condition an accused’s release on his proving
how much bond he can afford, and it requires more than “coming up with a lower
number.” Id. at 928-29. “[I]t mandates his release–either on personal bond or by
reducing the required bail amount–period.” Id. at 928. The record shows that Lanclos
cannot afford bonds totaling $150,000 because he never posted it. See id.
Viewing the entire record in favor of the trial court’s ruling, we hold that the
trial court abused its discretion by not reducing the amount of Lanclos’s bonds to an
amount he could afford. See id.; Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d at 428; Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, § 1(1). Accordingly, we sustain Lanclos’s sole issue, reverse
the trial court’s order, and remand the case for immediate further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
_________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on October 11, 2021
Opinion Delivered November 3, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
6