Ex Parte Cinque Ross, 06-14-00206-CR

Background

Cinque Ross was convicted of being a felon in possession of a weapon and sentenced to 8 years; an appellate bond was set at $100,000.
Ross filed a motion to reduce his appellate bond, asserting community ties, steady work history, compliance with prior bond conditions, and that he and his family could not afford the premium (but might afford a much smaller amount).
At the bond-reduction hearing Ross testified about residency, family ties, prior pretrial bond compliance, prior employment, and limited family resources; cross-examination revealed a criminal history including felonies and multiple misdemeanors.
The State relied on the presentence investigation (PSI), Ross’s criminal record, the PSI statement that guns were sold to buy drugs, lack of a driver’s license, and argued community safety concerns; the trial court took judicial notice of prior proceedings and the PSI.
The trial court denied the motion to reduce bond; the State appeals that denial and defends the denial as within the court’s discretion under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.15.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce appellate bond	Ross: $100,000 bond is excessive given his ties, employment history, compliance with prior conditions, and family’s limited ability to pay a premium	State: Court properly weighed statutory factors (Art. 17.15), criminal history, PSI statements, and community safety; defendant has no right to bond he can afford	Denial affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; within zone of reasonable disagreement
Whether the court properly considered statutory Art. 17.15 factors	Ross: Court should have reduced bond because inability to pay was shown	State: Court considered and weighed the mandatory factors and found evidence of inability to pay insufficient	Held: Court considered all five Art. 17.15 factors and permissibly discredited the limited testimony on indigence
Whether the defendant met burden to prove bond was oppressive/excessive	Ross: Present testimony showed bond functioned as an instrument of oppression	State: No evidence that bond was oppressive; defendant failed to present financial proof or corroborating witnesses/documents	Held: Defendant failed to meet burden; court did not apply bond oppressively
Reliance on PSI and criminal history in bond decision	Ross: Emphasized community ties and compliance	State: PSI and prior convictions justify higher bond for community safety and flight risk concerns	Held: Court permissibly relied on PSI and criminal record as relevant factors in setting bond

Key Cases Cited

Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007) (trial court’s bail reduction rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; ability to pay is one factor)
Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court has discretion in setting bail; considerations for excessiveness)
Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ability to make bail does not control amount set)
Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Crim. App.) (primary purpose of bail is to secure presence; factors to consider)
Light v. State, 15 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court credibility and demeanor findings)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court findings of historical fact)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1991) (appellate standard of review—zone of reasonable disagreement)
McLendon v. State, 356 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App. —Texarkana 2011) (nature and circumstances of offense important in bail-setting)
Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (proof required to show inability to make bond)