Ex Parte Amber Hope Halford, 10-15-00244-CR

Amber Halford, indicted for capital murder (state not seeking death penalty), sought habeas relief after trial court reduced bail from $1,000,000 to $250,000.
At the habeas hearing Halford (20) testified she worked as a waitress, had lived locally her whole life, had no assets, limited employment history, and no present place to live if released.
Halford had a related burglary charge for the same victim; evidence alleged she participated in a burglary the night before the murder in which four firearms were stolen and one was used in the murder; two stolen firearms remained missing.
Halford’s father said he could raise $10,000–$15,000 but not the bond-company funds required for nine-figure bond amounts; Halford offered to wear an ankle monitor and accept a curfew.
The trial court initially reduced bail to $500,000, then matched a co-defendant’s reduced bail of $250,000 after correction by the State.
No detailed evidence of the murder’s exact circumstances was introduced at the hearing; the court considered statutory/common-law bail factors and the serious nature and potential punishment for capital murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether bail of $250,000 was excessive/abuse of discretion	Halford: bail is excessive because no proof of murder details was offered and family could only pay ~$10k–$15k	State: nature of the capital offense and missing firearms justify high bail; court may set bail above defendant’s ability to pay	Court: No abuse of discretion; $250,000 bail was reasonable given offense severity and other factors

Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (sets factors for assessing reasonable bail)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standards for appellate review of discretionary trial-court rulings)
Ex parte Gonzalez, 383 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (review of bail decisions for abuse of discretion)
Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (consideration of statutory/common-law bail factors)
Ex parte Hunt, 138 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (appellate deference where trial court considered required factors)
Ex parte Durst, 148 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (nature of offense and potential punishment weigh heavily in bail decisions)
Aviles v. State, 26 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (emphasizing nature of offense and length of sentence as primary bail factors)
Ex parte Hulin, 31 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (same)
Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (defendant’s ability to pay is not controlling on bail amount)