Ex parte Smith
486 S.W.3d 62
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Smith arrested for murder July 30, 2015; bail set at $1,000,000 and he was continuously jailed for over 90 days without being ready for trial.
- On November 6, 2015 Smith filed an Article 17.151 habeas application seeking release on personal bond or a reasonable bond; indictment returned November 18, 2015.
- At the December 7 hearing Smith proved he could not make bail; the State did not prove it was ready for trial and the investigating detective testified the investigation and file turnover were incomplete.
- Trial court denied relief, citing seriousness of offense, Smith’s leaving the state, multi‑state investigation, and State’s good faith in presenting the case to the grand jury.
- On appeal the court applied Ex parte Gill (controlling) and found the trial court erred by using Article 17.15 considerations; it concluded Smith’s $1,000,000 bond was excessive and remanded for proceedings consistent with Article 17.151.
- The court declined to resolve whether Article 17.09 could be used to import Article 17.15 factors in direct response to an Article 17.151 application because the State presented no record evidence of changed circumstances or that Smith had once given bail.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 17.151 required release or bail reduction after >90 days and State not ready | Article 17.151 mandates release on personal bond or bail reduction if State not ready within 90 days | Trial court may deny relief based on offense seriousness, flight risk, investigation complexity, and State’s good faith | Held for Smith: Article 17.151 applies; trial court erred relying on those Article 17.15 factors (per Ex parte Gill) |
| Whether Smith proved current bail excessive / indigence | Smith produced testimony about employment, assets, cash, family ability to pay and stated he could make a $3,000 personal bond | State argued Smith failed to prove bail excessive and cited prior cases requiring evidence of indigence | Held for Smith: record contained evidence of inability to pay and indigence; $1,000,000 was excessive |
| Whether Article 17.15 factors (nature of offense, community safety, criminal history) apply in Article 17.151 hearings | Prohibited by Gill; these factors cannot be considered when State is not ready within statutory time | State contended Article 17.09 permits consideration of those factors (citing Hernandez) | Held: Gill controls; Article 17.15 factors not applicable in direct Article 17.151 adjudication; Article 17.09 argument rejected on the record because State showed no changed circumstances or that bond had once been posted |
| Whether this court should decide interplay of Articles 17.151 and 17.09 | Smith: not necessary; relief should be granted under 17.151 | State: 17.09 could allow trial court to consider 17.15 factors via bond modification authority | Held: Issue premature; court declines to decide the broader interplay because State failed to present requisite evidence to invoke 17.09 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Article 17.151 requires release or bail reduction when State not ready; Article 17.15 factors like offense nature and community safety do not apply)
- Hernandez v. State, 465 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2015, pet. ref'd) (trial court increased bond post‑release under Article 17.09 based on changed circumstances)
- Ex parte Jones, 803 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (State bears initial burden to show readiness for trial under Article 17.151)
- Ex parte Ragston, 422 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (discusses State’s burden to prove readiness and retrospective showings of readiness)
- Carraway v. State, 750 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (discusses sufficiency of proof for indigence and prior challenges to Article 17.151)