NO. 07-03-0094-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
AUGUST 22, 2003
______________________________
FRANK GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY;
NO. 11296; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Frank Gonzalez Hernandez appeals from the trial court’s refusal to reduce his bond.
We affirm.
Appellant is incarcerated in Wheeler County pursuant to arrest for possession of
a controlled substance, cocaine, over 400 grams. Bond has been set at $150,000.
Via habeas corpus motion and hearing, appellant sought reduction of the bond.
Appellant did not offer evidence of his income, net worth, financial status, funds available
to him through family and friends or attempts to make bond. He testified that he could not
make the bond set.
The standard by which we review the amount of a bond is abuse of discretion. See
Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Ex parte Milburn, 8
S.W.3d 422, 424 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1999, no pet.). It is the defendant's burden to prove
that the bond is excessive. See Ex parte Sabur-Smith, 73 S.W.3d 436, 439 (Tex.App.--
Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Such a showing generally requires proof that the
defendant made an unsuccessful effort to furnish bond in the amount fixed. Id. Absent
a showing by appellant that an effort has been made to furnish bond in the amount fixed
by the trial court, an abuse of discretion in setting the bond is not shown. See Ex parte
Stembridge, 472 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971).
Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. The order
setting bond is affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2