Ex Parte K.G., 13-20-00287-CR

Gibson was arrested Feb. 21, 2020 on separate charges: murder (first-degree) and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (second-degree); bonds set at $300,000 and $150,000 respectively. He was also held on a motion to revoke community supervision for a prior aggravated robbery (no bond).
On May 22, 2020 Gibson filed two pretrial habeas applications under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.151, §1(1), seeking release on personal bonds because he alleged the State failed to indict him within 90 days of detention.
Gibson also argued various COVID-19 emergency orders (Governor, Texas Supreme Court, and local courts) that altered grand jury procedures or tolled/extended deadlines were unconstitutional; he challenged an indictment he claimed was void because some grand jurors participated virtually.
The trial court held a consolidated hearing, found the emergency orders constitutional, and concluded art. 17.151 did not apply because Gibson was lawfully detained on the pending motion to revoke and had not requested a revocation hearing under art. 42A.751(d).
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the statutory issues and abuse-of-discretion for habeas denial, applied judicial restraint to avoid constitutional questions, held the art. 17.151 exception applied, and affirmed the denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gibson must be released under art. 17.151 because no indictment within 90 days	Gibson: State failed to indict within 90 days; emergency COVID orders are unconstitutional so deadlines/procedures were not extended or altered	State: Emergency orders validly extended/modified procedures; alternatively, art. 17.151 exception applies because Gibson is detained on another accusation	Court: Did not decide constitutionality; resolved on nonconstitutional ground—exception applies; habeas denial affirmed
Whether art. 17.151 exception for detention "pending trial of another accusation" applies when detained on a motion to revoke	Gibson: Exception does not apply to revocation detention or was not triggered here	State: Motion to revoke is "another accusation" and Gibson had not invoked his 20-day revocation-hearing right, so the applicable period had not lapsed	Court: Motion to revoke qualifies as "another accusation" and the revocation deadline is triggered by the defendant filing for a hearing; exception applies; Gibson not entitled to personal bond under art. 17.151
Waiver of appellate review for not addressing the statutory-exception ground in briefing	Gibson: He addressed the issue at oral argument and in a post-submission brief	State: Gibson waived appellate review by failing to brief the statutory ground	Court: Even assuming no waiver, court affirms on the statutory ground—no reversible error

Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard: abuse of discretion review for denial of pretrial habeas)
State v. Hill, 499 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (statutory-construction principles; plain-meaning rule)
Ex parte Castellano, 321 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (State readiness requires a charging instrument)
Kernahan v. State, 657 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (existence of charging instrument is element of state preparedness)
Aguilar v. State, 621 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (20-day revocation-hearing deadline runs from defendant's motion requesting the hearing)
In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003) (judicial restraint: avoid constitutional questions if case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds)
Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (constitutional issues should not be addressed when nonconstitutional grounds resolve the case)