Ex Parte Christopher Michael Dupuy v. State, 14-15-00678-CR

Christopher M. Dupuy, a former Galveston County judge on deferred-adjudication probation for a misdemeanor, was indicted on two third-degree felonies under Tex. Penal Code § 33.07 (online impersonation) and arrested July 2, 2015.
Magistrate initially set bond at $300,000 per case; the State moved for additional conditions (no-contact, GPS, surrender passport, firearms prohibition) which were granted.
At a bond-reduction habeas hearing, law enforcement testified they found firearms, a bullet, phones, a GPS tracking device, and alleged harassing texts; investigators conceded none of the recovered items or messages were per se illegal and authorship of some texts was unknown.
Dupuy’s mother testified regarding his family ties, education, lack of felony history, inability to post $400,000 total bond, and that she could afford roughly $20,000 total.
The trial court reduced each bond to $200,000 but imposed extensive and unusual conditions (GPS monitoring, near-total speech restrictions, home confinement-like requirements, daily logs, limits on utensils, etc.).
Appellant seeks habeas relief in the court of appeals arguing the combined $400,000 bond (and ancillary conditions) is the functional equivalent of pretrial detention and is excessive and oppressive under the Eighth Amendment, Art. I, § 11a of the Texas Constitution, and Art. 17.15 factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dupuy)	Held
Whether $200,000 bond per case is excessive/functional pretrial detention	Bond justified by totality: weapons, GPS device, harassment evidence, community safety concerns	Bond is grossly excessive for non‑violent third‑degree offenses; State failed to show dangerousness or flight risk; amount is oppressive	Court urged to find abuse of discretion and reduce bond (appellate relief sought)
Whether bail conditions (speech, travel, GPS, daily logs, utensil limits) are permissible	Conditions protect victims and community; are tailored to concerns	Conditions are arbitrary, overbroad, infringe First Amendment and presumption of innocence, lacked factual nexus	Court urged to strike or narrow many conditions as abuse of discretion
Weight of Art. 17.15 factors (nature of offense, ability to pay, ties)	Court may consider alleged conduct and items found to justify higher bail	Art. 17.15 factors (nonviolent offenses, community ties, indigence, probation compliance) weigh toward lower bail	Appellant contends factors mandate substantial reduction; appellate review standard is abuse of discretion
Whether trial court used bail as an instrument of oppression	State: not argued as oppressive—necessary for safety	Dupuy: amount far exceeds reasonable assurance of appearance and functions as incarceration without trial	Appellant requests remand with directives to set bond no more than $20,000 per case

Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (excessive bail review; extreme departures from prior practice suggest abuse of discretion)
Ex parte Durst, 148 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (bail for extremely violent offenses reduced where amounts exceeded necessity)
Ex parte Bogia, 56 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (oppressive nature of high bail and its displacement of presumption of innocence)
Ex parte Ludwig v. State, 812 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (high bail in capital cases reduced; comparison of bail levels informs excessiveness analysis)
Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (factors relevant to bail under Article 17.15)
Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (appearance bond secures presence; bail must be reasonable)
Ex parte Wood, 308 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (constitutional protection for reasonable bail)
Pharris v. State, 165 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard of review: trial court’s exercise of discretion must be guided by reason)