Lanclos, Ex Parte Allen Christopher
O P I N I O N
Appellant was arrested on August 23, 2020, for assault on a public servant. The trial court set his bonds at a total of $2,250,000. Appellant could not post bonds in that amount and unsuccessfully sought their reduction. After he had been detained for 90 days without having been indicted, he filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.151 seeking reduction of the bonds to an amount he could afford or release on personal bond. See
We granted review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in denying the relief required by Article 17.151 Section 1. It did. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the habeas court for immediate further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court of appeals held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Appellant‘s bonds to $1,500,000 because Appellant did not present evidence about his financial resources other than his wife‘s affidavit saying they could not afford bonds of $2,250,000 and that the bail bond companies she had spoken to would not post bonds in that amount. Ex parte Lanclos, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 1763, at *4-5. The court of appeals said the habeas court could have reasonably concluded that evidence of Appellant‘s financial circumstances was inadequate, and the reduction of the bond amount to $1,500,000 was not an abuse of discretion. Id. at *5.
But Article 17.151 is mandatory; if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of
The State argues for dismissal of the appeal because Appellant‘s writ was not sworn to. See
The State also contends that Appellant received the relief he requested in the form of a reduced bond amount and that the court of appeals properly concluded that Appellant
The State argues that Article 17.151 has been suspended by executive order. See The Governor of the State of Tex., Exec. Order No. GA-13, March 29, 2020, 45 Tex. Reg. 2368, 2369 (2020). The executive order reads in relevant part: “Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby suspended to the extent necessary to prevent any person‘s automatic release on personal bond because the State is not ready for trial.” The executive order suspends Article 17.151 only to the extent that it calls for releasing defendants on personal bond. It does not suspend Article 17.151‘s release of defendants on bonds they can afford.
The State also argues that Article 17.151‘s exception in Section 2(4) applies. See
The first statement cited by the State was made at the original bond hearing, before 90 days had expired, in the context of outlining Appellant‘s criminal history. The prosecutor told the habeas court that misdemeanor charges were pending against Appellant and that Appellant was on community supervision. “So he‘s violated the conditions of his [community supervision] and the bonds associated with his release and things.” The second statement cited by the State was made in the Article 17.151 hearing by Appellant‘s attorney who said that Appellant had “a couple of misdemeanors that are unrelated to the offense, but I think it‘s three offenses total. And it‘s the same conduct, just three different complainants.”
For the sake of argument, looking at these statements in the light most favorable to the State‘s position, they show that Appellant was on bond for two or more misdemeanors and on community supervision for some other offense. But they do not show that Appellant‘s present detention had anything to do with a prior release. Even assuming that commission of a felony while on bond for an unrelated misdemeanor would invoke the
As for Appellant being on community supervision, Article 17.151 section 2(4)‘s exception is invoked only by “a violation of the conditions of a previous release[.]”
The dissenting opinion objects to granting Appellant relief because the record is silent about what bond he could afford. But that‘s irrelevant. Article 17.151 does not condition a defendant‘s release on his proving how much bond he can afford. See Gill, 423 S.W.3d at 431. Rather, it mandates his release—either on personal bond or by
The habeas court‘s only question was where is Appellant from, and hearing “Hardin County,” the judge responded, “I don‘t guess I need to hear anything else from Mr. Lanclos, do I?” The attorney agreed “because the circumstances of 151 sort of make it different than needing to hear a bunch of evidence.” The judge concurred. “I just need to come up with a number lower than what it is.” But Article 17.151 requires more than coming up with a lower number. It mandates release. The habeas court abused its discretion in picking a number that frustrated Article 17.151‘s mandate to release Appellant.
Appellant was detained in jail on felony charges without indictment for more than 90 days. He was entitled to release under Article 17.151. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the habeas court for Appellant‘s bond to be set in an amount he can afford to pay. No motions for rehearing will be entertained.
Delivered: June 30, 2021