Hernandez, Ex Parte Steven, PD-0680-15

Background

Steven Hernandez was arrested for aggravated robbery; initially held on $75,000 bond.
On December 18 (before indictment), the trial court released Hernandez under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.151 on a $25,000 personal-recognizance bond with GPS monitoring and a curfew.
The State later presented the case to a grand jury; an indictment returned on January 6.
The State filed an ex parte motion to increase bond; the trial court reinstated the original $75,000 bond.
Hernandez filed objections and an application for habeas relief arguing no material change in circumstances justified raising bond; the trial court denied relief and the Third Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Hernandez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may revisit and increase bond after release under art. 17.151	Raising bond after art. 17.151 release (when defendant complied with conditions) abuses discretion and nullifies art. 17.151 protections	Trial court retains continuing authority under art. 17.09 to modify bond for good cause after release	Court of Appeals: trial court may revisit bond under art. 17.09 and did not abuse its discretion
Whether pre-release evidence (e.g., DNA report dated before release) could justify a later bond increase	Pre-existing evidence that was available before the art. 17.151 release cannot be used post-indictment to justify increasing bond when defendant remained compliant	State argued DNA evidence and indictment justified reassessment of bond and safety concerns	Court of Appeals: DNA evidence (though dated earlier) was presented to the court after indictment and could be considered in reassessing bond
Whether considerations of victim/community safety may be applied when art. 17.151 release is implicated	Article 17.151 limits consideration to its enumerated factors; treating it as subordinate to safety-based conditions undermines its purpose	Court may consider community/victim safety (and impose conditions) under art. 17.40 and later reassess adequacy of bond	Court of Appeals: trial court properly considered safety, aggravating factors, and flight risk when reassessing bond
Whether the mere return of an indictment is a sufficient, standalone basis to increase bond	Indictment alone should not permit bond increase if no other change in circumstances and defendant complied with bond conditions	Indictment, together with evidence presented (e.g., DNA, offense gravity), can support bond increase	Court of Appeals: indictment combined with evidentiary showing supported the court’s exercise of discretion to increase bond

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (interpreting art. 17.151 and limiting factors a court may consider at the release stage)
Martin v. State, 176 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (discussing post-bond developments as grounds for bond modification)
Miller v. State, 855 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (evaluating trial court’s reasons for increasing bond after release)
Meador v. State, 780 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (addressing bond modification and abuse-of-discretion review)