Ex Parte Alfredo Castillo Lorente
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 738
Tex. App.2014Background
- Alfredo Castillo-Lorente, a Cuban permanent resident, was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity and money laundering involving over $200,000 based on alleged credit-card cloning and large-scale fraud.
- Trial court initially set bail at $400,000 (organized criminal activity) and $250,000 (money laundering); after a habeas hearing the court reduced bail to $225,000 on each count.
- Castillo sought further reduction to $40,000 per count, presenting testimony that family/bondsmen could post $30,000–$40,000 bonds but offered no documentary proof of assets.
- Prosecution evidence included surveillance, recovered gift cards, international money transfers (to Cuba, Ukraine, Russia), and co-conspirators arrested or located abroad; detectives testified Castillo could continue fraud using computers and had ties outside the U.S.
- Trial court found Castillo a significant flight risk given the serious, non-violent but extensive nature of the offenses, potential lengthy sentences, foreign ties, and alleged access to card-cloning equipment.
- On appeal from denial of habeas relief, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the bail at $225,000 per count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $225,000 bail on each count is excessive | Castillo argued bail is unreasonable and should be reduced to $40,000 per count because he has strong community ties, no prior record, steady residence/employment, and will appear for trial | State argued high bail is necessary to assure appearance given serious offenses, potential lengthy sentences, international ties, transfers of funds abroad, and access to card‑cloning means | Court held bail not excessive; trial court did not abuse discretion and $225,000 per count was reasonable to assure appearance and not oppressive |
Key Cases Cited
- Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (applies Eighth Amendment excessive‑bail prohibition to the states)
- Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant bears burden to show bail excessive; abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App.—Austin) (appellate deference to trial court within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App.) (noncitizen status may be considered in bail determination)
- Ex parte Hunt, 138 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (seriousness and punishment range are relevant to bail)
- Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (nature/circumstances require consideration of punishment range)
- Ex parte Hulin, 31 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (serious offenses with aggravating factors justify higher bail)
- Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (defendant must show exhaustion of funds to prove inability to make bail)
- Ex parte Scott, 122 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (ability to make bond is one factor; absence of proof of inability supports denial of reduction)
- Ex parte Ruiz, 129 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (bondsman testimony alone may be insufficient to prove inability to make bail)
- Maldonado v. State, 999 S.W.2d 91 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (non‑violent large‑scale economic crimes can affect community safety)
- United States v. James, 674 F.2d 886 (11th Cir.) (substantial bail on racketeering not per se excessive)
- Constantino v. Warren, 684 S.E.2d 601 (Ga.) (denial of bail in RICO prosecution did not violate Excessive Bail Clause)