Steven Hernandez v. State
03-15-00104-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Steven Hernandez was arrested for aggravated robbery on Sept. 25, 2014; initial bond set at $75,000.
- On Dec. 18, 2014 (after >90 days unindicted detention), the trial court released Hernandez on a personal bond under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.151.
- Hernandez was indicted on Jan. 6, 2015; the State filed a Motion to Increase Bond invoking art. 17.09 (including §3) and art. 17.15.
- The trial court concluded the bond was "insufficient in amount" and increased bond to $75,000; the State relied on the indictment and new DNA evidence linking Hernandez to the crime.
- Hernandez filed an objection complaining the January 7 ex parte increase; he was heard in court on Jan. 8 and the court denied his habeas application, citing indictment, DNA, victim/community safety, and likelihood of appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hernandez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ex parte bond increase (Jan. 7) was improper and preserved for appeal | The trial court abused its discretion by increasing Hernandez's personal bond in an ex parte hearing attended only by the State | The objection was not adequately preserved/briefed; Hernandez did not press the ex parte objection at the subsequent hearing and was heard the next day, mooting any procedural complaint | Not preserved: State argues the issue is inadequately briefed and rendered moot by the Jan. 8 contested hearing |
| Whether art. 17.151 forbids any subsequent bond increase under art. 17.09 after a 17.151 release | Once released under art. 17.151, bond may not be later increased under art. 17.09 merely because the State becomes ready; allowing increases would gut 17.151 protections | Article 17.09 authorizes rearrest and a new bond for "good and sufficient cause" (art. 17.09 §3); if the State becomes ready and circumstances change (e.g., indictment, new DNA evidence), a court may increase bond without nullifying 17.151 | State’s position: art. 17.151 does not permanently bar later bond increases; a court may invoke art. 17.09 §3 when good and sufficient cause exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate-briefing and preservation requirements)
- Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (interpretation of art. 17.151 and its purpose to prevent indefinite detention of unindicted accused)
- Ex parte Castellano, 321 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (discussing interplay of indictment, rearrest, and whether art. 17.09 can support bond revocation after a 17.151 release)
- Ex parte McNeil, 772 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (State cannot announce ready for trial when there is no indictment)
- Miller v. State, 855 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App. 1993) (trial court discretion to increase bail for "good and sufficient cause")
- Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (value of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings)