Ex Parte Andre Jackson
03-17-00302-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Andre Jackson was arrested on Nov. 28, 2016 on a murder warrant alleging a Nov. 6, 2016 homicide; bond was set at $250,000.
- A grand jury indicted Jackson on Jan. 18, 2017. Jackson filed a counsel-led habeas petition for bail reduction the same day and a pro se petition on Mar. 13, 2017.
- Jackson argued the State was not "ready for trial" within the 90-day window under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.151 because it had not announced readiness and lacked certain cell-phone records until March.
- The State asserted it had been ready upon indictment and that the March records were only supplemental, not essential to preparedness.
- The trial court denied relief after a hearing, finding the State had announced readiness within 90 days and Jackson presented no credible evidence to rebut that showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying habeas relief for failure of the State to be "ready for trial" within 90 days under Art. 17.151 | Jackson: The State did not formally announce ready within 90 days and key cell-phone records were obtained only in March, after the 90-day period | State: Indictment (Jan. 18) and prosecutor's retrospective announcement show readiness within 90 days; cell records were ancillary and not essential | Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; State made prima facie showing of readiness and Jackson failed to rebut it |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review for bail-related rulings)
- Ex parte Smith, 486 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for bail decisions)
- Ex parte McNeil v. Rains, 772 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (existence of charging instrument is element of preparedness)
- Jones v. State, 803 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (State must make prima facie showing of readiness; retrospective announcement can suffice)
- Pate v. State, 592 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (indictment necessary before State may announce ready)
- Philen v. State, 683 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (failure to subpoena witnesses or obtain records does not necessarily rebut State's readiness)