Ex Parte Teddy Berry
09-14-00520-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 12, 2015Background
- Teddy Berry was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery (first-degree felonies); bail initially set at no bond, later set at $150,000 per case after a habeas hearing with GPS-monitor condition.
- Berry posted the $300,000 aggregate bond; the State then moved (without hearing) to increase bail to $500,000 per case based on an alleged recorded jail phone call in which Berry threatened complaining witnesses.
- Berry filed second habeas applications arguing the increased bail was excessive and that the State improperly withheld the threat evidence until after he posted the initial bond.
- At the second habeas hearing, Berry presented limited evidence: family ties in Arkansas, brief compliance with bond conditions (including ankle monitor), a $10,000 down payment to bondsman, and testimony from the bondsman about monitoring and check-ins.
- The trial court, finding the threat and weighing flight risk, seriousness of the offenses, and victim safety, denied relief and kept bail at $500,000 per case. Berry appealed; the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in increasing bail from $150,000 to $500,000 under art. 17.09 | Berry: increase improper because State relied on unproven/alleged threat and did not present evidence at time of initial hearing | State: filed to increase as soon as prosecutor learned of recorded threat; victim safety justifies increase under art. 17.09 exception | Affirmed: Berry waived specific challenge to lack of evidence at increase stage; court has broad discretion to increase bail for good and sufficient cause |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by considering evidence (threat) the State possessed earlier but disclosed after initial bond | Berry: consideration oppressive and encourages withholding evidence until after defendant incurs bond costs | State: prosecutor acted once personally aware; no proof of intentional withholding to keep Berry incarcerated | Affirmed: no evidence of intentional withholding; victim safety is proper factor under art. 17.15(5) |
| Whether $500,000 bail is excessive/oppressive in violation of federal/state constitutions and art. 17.15 | Berry: bail exceeds what is reasonably necessary; limited ties to Texas and some compliance with bond conditions show low flight/danger risk | State/Trial Court: violent nature of charges, potential long sentence, out-of-state residence, limited community ties, alleged threat, and lack of proof of inability to pay justify high bail | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; bail within zone of reasonable disagreement given flight risk, victim safety, and lack of proof of inability to pay |
| Whether trial court failed to consider ability to make bail | Berry: $10,000 paid exhausted resources and renders $500,000 oppressive | Trial Court/State: Berry presented no proof that funds/family assets were exhausted or that he made unsuccessful efforts to secure higher bond | Affirmed: Berry failed to meet burden to show inability to pay; court properly weighed lack of financial proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden on defendant to prove bail excessive)
- Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Crim. App.) (purpose of appearance bond is to secure presence at trial)
- Ex parte Wood, 308 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Beaumont) (trial court discretion on bail increase under art. 17.09)
- Miller v. State, 855 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (no precise standard for "good and sufficient cause" under art. 17.09)
- Meador v. State, 780 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (trial court has great latitude when setting bond)
- Ex parte Hunt, 138 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (consideration of potential punishment in bail analysis)
- Ex parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (showing exhaustion of funds/family resources required to prove inability to pay bail)
- Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (defendant must show unsuccessful effort to furnish bail absent proof funds exhausted)
- Esquivel v. State, 922 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. App.—San Antonio) (weight of short-term compliance with bond is for trial court to assess)