Ex parte Shires
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13813
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Heath Shires was indicted in 2014 on four felony sexual-offense counts involving a minor and released on bail with conditions including no alcohol and no new offenses.
- In Sept. 2016 Shires was arrested for felony DWI; the State moved to hold his original bail insufficient under Tex. Const. art. I, § 11b (section lib) because he violated bond conditions.
- At the September 12 hearing Shires stipulated he violated bond conditions and sought imposition of a SCRAM alcohol-monitoring device instead of detention; he also argued section lib violates the 14th Amendment.
- The trial court held the bond insufficient, treated the hearing as a habeas corpus proceeding, and denied Shires’ habeas petition; this appeal followed.
- The court considered (1) whether section lib requires express findings or a particular burden of proof and (2) whether section lib is facially and as-applied unconstitutional for not requiring clear-and-convincing proof that no conditions could assure safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of section lib violated procedural due process (as-applied) | Shires: section lib must require clear-and-convincing proof that release would pose substantial risk and that no conditions (e.g., SCRAM) would suffice | State/majority: section lib requires only a preponderance determination; express findings not required and court may imply findings supported by the record | Held: No procedural due process violation — express findings not required; preponderance is the constitutional standard under section lib; implied findings supported revocation |
| Whether section lib is facially unconstitutional under substantive due process | Shires: section lib is facially invalid because it lacks a clear-and-convincing standard and does not require a finding that no release conditions would reasonably assure safety | State/majority: Salerno does not mandate importing its clear-and-convincing requirement into every pretrial-detention context; Texas constitutional amendment reflects voters’ judgment and may use preponderance | Held: Section lib is not facially unconstitutional — challenger failed to show it is always invalid; legislature and voters may adopt the provision and preponderance standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct. App. at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (text of constitutional/statutory provisions guides construction)
- Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (the text of a statute is the law)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate courts may imply factual findings when record supports the trial court’s ruling)
- Ex parte Flores, 483 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (abuse of discretion standard for habeas/bail rulings)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (upholding federal Bail Reform Act and discussing clear-and-convincing proof in that statutory scheme)
- Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1984) (recognizing government’s legitimate interest in preventing danger to the community)
- State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (drunk driving presents a risk to community safety)
- Ex parte Elliott, 950 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997) (upholding interlock device condition in light of DWI history)