Shephard, Craig Ross, AP-77,056

Background

Appellant Craig Ross Shephard was arrested March 13–14, 2015 and charged in three matters: Cause No. 1383239 (motion to adjudicate deferred adjudication for prior drug offense), Cause No. 1461069 (possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine), and Cause No. 1461070 (possession of a prohibited firearm).
HIDTA officers executed two search warrants March 12, 2015 at 811 Aldine Mail Route Unit 500; methamphetamine residue, some meth, and firearms were recovered from the unit and a Ford F‑150 parked inside, but Shephard was not present during either search.
Deputy Perez (State’s sole hearing witness) testified he did not personally locate the meth or shotgun, could not specify their exact locations, and did not know whether weapon cases were locked; the truck was operable and the weapons were in Pelican cases on the truck bed.
Shephard was arrested the next day ~10–15 minutes from the warehouse, without drugs or weapons on his person.
At a §1, art. I, §11a bail hearing the trial court announced it would hold Shephard without bond on all three matters and later entered written no‑bond orders for at least two of the causes; Shephard appealed, arguing the State failed to make the constitutionally required "substantial showing."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Shephard)	Held (trial court action)
1. Validity of no‑bond on Cause No. 1383239 (motion to adjudicate)	That the adjudication matter could be included in the no‑bond hearing	The motion to adjudicate does not allege a §11a violent or sexual offense; defendant on deferred adjudication is not yet convicted and is entitled to bail; no written no‑bond order was entered for this cause	Trial court orally held defendant without bond on all three cases (no written order entered for 1383239)
2. Whether State made a "substantial showing" under art. I, §11a(3) for Cause No. 1461069 (possession with intent to deliver)	The presence of drugs and firearms at the same warehouse/vehicle supports denial of bail under §11a(3) (use of deadly weapon after prior felony)	State failed to substantially show (a) Shephard committed the drug offense (he was not present; weak direct links), and (b) he "used" a deadly weapon—mere presence or proximity insufficient; weapons were stored in Pelican cases in a moveable truck and were not shown to be accessible or employed to further the drug offense	Trial court held defendant without bond on this cause
3. Whether State made a "substantial showing" under art. I, §11a(3) for Cause No. 1461070 (possession of prohibited weapon)	Possession of the weapon supports no‑bond treatment given prior felony and weapons found with drugs	The indictment charges mere possession; Petty and related authority require use to be more than mere possession—no evidence weapons were used to facilitate another felony	Trial court held defendant without bond on this cause
4. Sufficiency and form of the no‑bond order	State relied on §11a exceptions to justify preventive detention	No written order was entered for the adjudication cause; Westbrook requires written order to deny bail; §11a safeguards and substantial‑showing standard were not met	Trial court announced intent to revisit bonds in 60 days but previously denied bond orally; written orders incomplete (as to 1383239)

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (proximity and context can support finding a weapon was used to further drug trafficking)
Westbrook v. State, 753 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (order denying bail must be in writing to be valid)
Ex parte Laday, 594 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (deferred‑adjudication defendant is not yet convicted and is entitled to bail pending adjudication)
Jackson v. State, 857 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (insufficient evidence that defendant "used" weapons where defendant was not present and guns were merely found)
United States v. Ceballos‑Torres, 218 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2000) (mere presence/proximity of a gun to drugs is insufficient; evidence must show possession furthered trafficking)
Ex parte Petty, 833 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (possession alone does not constitute "use" of a deadly weapon to achieve an associated felony)
Gale v. State, 998 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (proximity of weapons to contraband relevant to deadly‑weapon findings)
Castillo v. State, 426 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (consideration of proximity when assessing use of a weapon)