Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Appellant Dana Marie Contreras was convicted by a jury of murder. Punishment was assessed at 40 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. On July 5, 1999, we issued an opinion wherein we determined that appellant's written confession was improperly admitted at trial, and because we found the error was not harmless, we reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.
Pursuant to article 44.04(h) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant has filed an application for bail in the amount of $10,000, which was the amount originally set by the trial court. In response, the State has asked that we set appellant's bail at $120,000. Appellant's counsel has secured a bonding company which "stands ready, willing and able to make [appellant's] bond again in the event this Court grants Applicant the relief which she seeks."
According to the State, a $10,000 bail is insufficient for several reasons. First of all, the reversal flowed from errors seen in police procedures leading to the taking of appellant's written confession. As such, according to the State, the reversal was not based upon any deficiency in the incriminating evidence. The State also points out that appellant orally confessed. Second, appellant's punishment was assessed at 40 years in prison. The State argues that "[t]his relatively severe punishment indicates the jury's sense of the crime's gravity." Third, the State intends to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals, and if that Court affirms our decision, then the State will prosecute appellant again. And finally, appellant's family ties are "problematic." The State premises this argument on the fact that appellant's mother, Kenna Andrews, was "a primary State's witness at trial," and that while appellant was originally out on bond, her father had problems "controlling her."
There are several factors to be considered in setting bail. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15 (Vernon Supp. 1999). On appeal, a primary factor to consider in setting reasonable bail is the length of the sentence. Ex parte Davila, 623 S.W.2d 408, 409-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). Other factors include appellant's work record, family ties, length of residency, ability to make bail, previous criminal record, conformity with previous bond conditions, other outstanding bonds, and aggravating factors involved in the offense. Id. at 410.
Appellant was fifteen years old when the crime was committed. She was certified to and stood trial as an adult. The jury found her guilty and came back with a 40 year sentence. In her brief, appellant did not give details of her planned living arrangements. Also, the record is devoid of any prior criminal record. Within its brief, the State included evidence of problems between appellant and her father when she was out on bail prior to her conviction. Specifically, an affidavit to surrender her bond was filed because "defendants [sic] father feels she is a risk. He nor the attorney can do any thing with her. Her father wanted her surrendered." We must also consider the gravity of the offense appellant committed. Although we found the written confession was improperly admitted, appellant orally confessed to stabbing the victim. Indeed, the conformity with previous bond conditions and the aggravating factors surrounding the offense weigh in favor of the State's request for a higher bond.
In sum, based upon the above factors, we will grant appellant's application and set her bond at $50,000.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
tition.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 identifies the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court. Baldivia has failed to comply with these requirements. Rule 52.3 requires that all factual statements in a petition must be verified by affidavit made on personal knowledge. Baldivia does not include an affidavit. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all parties and the names and addresses of all counsel. Baldivia does not list the names of the parties against whom he seeks mandamus relief apart from their identification in the argument portion of his petition. Rule 52.3(b) requires that the petition include a table of contents with references to the pages of the petition and an indication of the subject matter of each issue or point raised in the petition. Baldivia’s petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a petition include an index of authorities in which all authorities cited in the petition are arranged alphabetically and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is indicated. Baldivia’s petition includes no index of authorities. Rule 52.3(f) requires the petition include a concise statement of all issues or points presented for relief. Baldivia’s petition includes no such statement. Each of these items are required in a petition for writ of mandamus and, as Baldivia failed to include them in his petition, we will not grant the relief that he requests.
However, even if Baldivia had complied with the requirements of Rule 52.3, his petition fails to establish his entitlement to mandamus relief. A court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges within the court of appeals’s district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004). As the named respondent is not identified as a judge, it is not within our jurisdictional reach and we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent absent a showing that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Cummins, 2004 WL 1948048, at *1 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).
Baldivia has provided this court none of the material documents relating to his alleged denial of privileges within the prison system. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1). As Baldivia’s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with the requirements of Rule 52.3 and fails to establish how the writ is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we deny the petition.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice