Affiliated Computer Systems Financial Services, Inc. v. First State Bank of Bremond

Affiliated Computer v. First St Bk Bremond

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-92-246-CV

     AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS

     FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     FIRST STATE BANK OF BREMOND,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court # 89-12-13,781-CV

                                                                                                    

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                    

            This appeal was perfected from a judgment signed on June 8, 1992.

      By motion, Appellant states that both parties have settled the case, that Appellant no longer desires to prosecute this appeal, and requests that the appeal be dismissed. The motion is granted.

      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 6, 1993

Do not publish

with a firearm and they then forced their way inside the residence.  Another individual in the residence was hit over the head with a firearm as well.  The residents of the home were forced to strip, and items were stolen from them and the residence.  The individual that witnessed the first assault called 911 and while he was retrieving the license plate number from the getaway vehicle, shots were fired at him from a passenger in the vehicle as it left the scene.  The vehicle was driven by Williams and was titled in his mother’s name.  Later, the victims identified Williams by name as one of the perpetrators.  Williams held an aluminum baseball bat, which he abandoned at the residence where the robberies took place.

            None of the other males involved in the aggravated robberies had been arrested at the time of the first writ hearing and no firearm had been recovered.  Williams refused to tell police the identities of the others who committed the offense with him, although he had told his mother their names.  The detective testified that she was concerned for the safety of Williams if released as well as the potential for Williams to commit other violent offenses with the other perpetrators.

            Williams had been charged with an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and other drug offenses as a juvenile.  There is no testimony in the record before us of Williams’s ties to the community, the length of time he had been in the community, or any work or school history.  The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law at Williams’s request.  The trial court based its decision to deny the second writ on the seriousness of the offense, the use of weapons to commit the offense, and the welfare of the community.

            Considering all of the factors, the burden of proof, and the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Williams’s second writ of habeas corpus.  Accordingly, Williams’s sole issue is overruled.

Conclusion

Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                               

                                                                        TOM GRAY

                                                                        Chief Justice

 

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Reyna, and

            Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 3, 2010

Do not publish

[CV06]