Ex Parte: Baudelio Flores
12-21-00079-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 1, 2021Background
- Appellant Baudelio Flores was arrested March 3, 2021 on an indictment for aggravated sexual assault of his 17‑year‑old daughter; initial bond set at $350,000, later reduced to $175,000 and posted.
- On April 1, 2021 Flores was re‑arrested on additional counts: sexual performance by a child (victim ≈ 13) and indecency with a child (victim age 11); the court set new bonds of $300,000 and $350,000 respectively (combined $650,000), producing a total exposure of $825,000 across all bonds.
- Flores filed pretrial habeas applications seeking reduction of the new bonds; the trial court denied relief and added post‑release conditions (ankle monitor; remain in Sabine County if released in future).
- Investigative testimony alleged multiple incidents beginning when the older daughter was 14, a recorded sexual video sent to "dad" when she was under 14, and threats by Flores to victims; the investigator testified Flores was a flight risk and danger to victims.
- Defense evidence showed long‑term employment (25+ years), strong community ties, no criminal history, family willingness to supervise him if released, and limited family ability to raise large bond sums; Flores had previously managed to post a portion of bond but could not afford amounts approaching the current totals.
- The court of appeals concluded the combined bail amounts were excessive given the statutory factors, the record did not show a specific intent to flee, and bail as set effectively amounted to no bond; it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying reduction of the new bonds as excessive | Flores: the new bonds ($300k + $350k) are excessive and oppressive given his inability to pay, strong community ties, employment, lack of criminal history, and existing $175k bond already posted | State: the severity and nature of the alleged child‑sex offenses, threats, and Flores’s legal‑permanent‑resident status (possible travel to Mexico) justify high bonds to protect victims and prevent flight | Court reversed: trial court abused discretion; bonds excessive and unsupported by evidence; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (standards for reviewing bail reduction and abuse of discretion)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse of discretion analysis and appellate review limits)
- Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (primary purpose of bail is assuring presence at trial)
- Ex parte Clark, 537 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (nature of the offense and authorized punishment relevant to bail)
- Ex parte Estrada, 398 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (statutory factors trial court may consider in setting bail)
- Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007) (comparison of bail levels in child‑sex cases)
- DePena v. State, 56 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (excessive bail may function as de facto denial of bond)
- Ludwig v. State, 812 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting very high bail rarely required even in capital cases)
- Nguyen v. State, 881 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (presumption of innocence limits use of bail as preconviction punishment)