Steven Hernandez v. State
03-15-00104-CR
Tex. App.Mar 4, 2015Background
- Steven Hernandez was arrested Sept. 25, 2014 on an aggravated robbery charge and initially jailed on a $75,000 bond.
- On Dec. 18, 2014 the trial court granted Hernandez a personal recognizance bond with conditions (GPS monitor, curfew) under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.151 because the State could not be ready for trial within 90 days.
- A Hays County grand jury returned a true bill on Jan. 6, 2015 (103 days after arrest).
- On Jan. 7, 2015 the State moved to increase bond; the court held an ex parte hearing (State only) and reinstated a $75,000 surety/cash bond and imposed bond conditions.
- Hernandez filed an application for habeas relief on Jan. 8, 2015 seeking reinstatement of the Article 17.151 personal bond; the trial court denied relief after a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hernandez) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held (trial-court action) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by raising and changing Hernandez’s personal bond in an ex parte hearing attended only by the State | The ex parte bond increase violated Article 17.151/Gill because the court changed a statutorily mandated personal bond without a proper adversary proceeding and the record contains no new material facts justifying the increase | The court relied on Art. 17.09 authority to reinstate a surety/cash bond after finding "good and sufficient cause," asserting a fact‑by‑fact analysis justified the change (e.g., indictment returned, allegations, DNA) | Court held an ex parte hearing and reinstated/changed the bond to a surety/cash bond (denied Hernandez’s challenge) |
| Whether the court erred by failing to reinstate the Article 17.151 personal bond after the State was not ready for trial within 90 days | Hernandez contends Article 17.151 and Ex parte Gill entitle him to continued personal recognizance relief absent a material change in circumstances; indictment returned after 90 days is not a sufficient basis to defeat the statutory release | The State/trial court contends that Art. 17.09 permits resetting bond upon "good and sufficient cause," and that the indictment plus investigative evidence (DNA, probable‑cause allegations) and public‑safety concerns justified increasing the bond | Court denied habeas relief and refused to reinstate the Article 17.151 personal bond |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits a trial court’s consideration of public‑safety/aggravating factors when Article 17.151 applies)
- Ex parte Castellano, 321 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (discusses interplay of Art. 17.09 bond‑reset authority with later procedural events)
- Miller v. State, 855 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (explains fact‑by‑fact inquiry for determining "good and sufficient cause" under Art. 17.09)