Ex Parte Austin Louis Robles, 612 S.W.3d 142

Appellant Austin Robles was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for allegedly shooting a minor on Feb. 11, 2020; magistrate set bail at $75,000 on Feb. 15, 2020.
Robles filed a habeas application (Apr. 6, 2020) seeking reduction to $10,000 based on changed circumstances from COVID-19 and his Type 2 diabetes; attached parental affidavits and offered testimony that he would live with his father if released.
The State produced investigative testimony tying Robles to two recent armed robberies and argued community danger and flight risk; the State orally sought bail be increased to $1,000,000.
Jail officials testified about COVID-19 precautions and that inmates have access to medical care; no testimony showed confirmed positives at the jail on the hearing date.
Trial court denied the habeas application in a written order but, on the record, orally increased bail to $100,000; no written order raising bail was signed.
The court of appeals affirmed denial of the bail-reduction writ and held the oral bail increase was of no effect, leaving bail at $75,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce bail from $75,000 to $10,000	Robles: COVID-19 + diabetes create heightened health risk; cannot afford $75,000; family will ensure appearance	State: Robles failed to prove inability to make bail or unsuccessful effort to procure bond; charged with violent offenses and suspected of other armed robberies	Denial affirmed — trial court acted within Rubac factors; appellant failed to prove inability to make bail or present compelling evidence of health risk that outweighs other factors
Whether the trial court’s oral increase of bail to $100,000 is valid without a written order	Robles: oral increase is improper and an abuse of discretion (also argued not to be lowered)	State: sought higher bail (requested $1,000,000) and treated oral ruling as effective	Oral increase invalid — bail increases that further deprive pretrial liberty require a written order; bail remains $75,000
Whether jail-health risk (COVID/medical vulnerability) should be treated as a new Rubac factor	Robles: court should add health risk in custody as an independent factor warranting reduction	State/Respondent: existing Rubac factors already allow consideration of health and jail conditions; insufficient evidence presented	Court declined to create a new factor; health evidence can be weighed under existing Rubac factors and here was insufficient to compel reduction

Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (establishes bail-factor framework and abuse-of-discretion review)
Ex parte Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (discusses standard for disturbing bail and inability-to-pay evidence)
Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (explains need to show unsuccessful effort to procure bail)
Ex parte Castillo-Lorente, 420 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (upholds substantial bail for serious/aggravated offenses)
Westbrook v. State, 753 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (addresses requirement of written orders for certain pretrial liberty deprivations)
Bell v. State, 515 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (requires courts of appeals to review jurisdiction sua sponte)
Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. 1980) (due process requires written judgment for contempt causing pretrial incarceration)
Ex parte Supercinski, 561 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (same on requirement of written commitment for contempt)