In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-16-00269-CR
________________________
JEREMY DAVID SPIELBAUER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 251st District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 26,626-C; Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding
August 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING RELIEF
IN HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Jeremy David Spielbauer, is currently incarcerated in the Randall
County Jail pending trial on the charge of capital murder.1 He appeals an order of the
trial court denying a request that his bail be reduced to $150,000. Also pending before
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The State has elected to not seek the death
penalty; therefore, under the facts of this case, the offense is punishable by imprisonment for life, without
the possibility of parole. Id. at § 12.31(a)(2) (West Supp. 2016).
this court is his Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief. We deny his
motion for extension of time, and upon immediate submission, affirm the order of the
trial court.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Prior to conviction, every citizen accused of a crime has a “strong interest in
liberty.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697
(1987). To protect that interest, the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. In
balancing the liberty interest of an accused and safety interests of society, the Texas
Legislature has adopted rules and guidelines whereby an accused can obtain pretrial
release through the posting of adequate bail. “Bail” is the security given by an accused
to guarantee that he will appear and answer accusations of criminal conduct, before the
proper court, at the appropriate time. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.01 (West
2015); Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The amount of
bail to be required in a given case is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the
trial court, governed by the Constitution and these rules:
1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the
undertaking will be complied with.
2. The power to require bail is not to be used so as to make it an
instrument of oppression.
3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was
committed are to be considered.
4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken
upon this point.
2
5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community
shall be considered.
Art. 17.15. The amount of bail should be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance
that the accused will comply with the undertaking, but not so high as to be an instrument
of oppression. Ex parte Bufkin, 553 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). In setting
bail, a trial court should consider the accused’s ability to make bail, his work record,
family ties, residency, criminal record, conformity with previous bond conditions, and
aggravating factors involved in the offense. Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1981).
When an accused is unable to make bail or believes that the amount of bail is
excessive, he may seek a reduction in bail by either filing a pretrial petition for a writ of
habeas corpus or a motion for bail reduction. In a bail reduction proceeding, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that the existing bail amount is excessive. Ex
parte Benefield, 403 S.W.3d 240, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Cochran, J., concurring
in the refusal of a petition for discretionary review) (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d
at 849). In reviewing an order from a bail reduction hearing, an appellate court reviews
the decision of the trial court under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. An abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference
to guiding rules or principles. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1990).
When written notice of appeal from an order in a habeas corpus or bail reduction
proceeding is filed, the trial court clerk must prepare and certify the clerk’s record within
fifteen days after the notice of appeal is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1. When a
3
hearing has been held, if the appellant requests, the official court reporter must also
prepare and certify the reporter’s record within that same time frame. Id. When an
appellate court receives the record, the court will—if it desires—set the time for filing
briefs and set the appeal for submission. Id.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
On April 20, 2016, a Randall County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging
Appellant with the offense of capital murder for a homicide allegedly committed on the
7th day of April, 2014. That same day, Appellant was arrested and subsequently
appeared before a magistrate, where his bail was set at $500,000. On May 10, 2016,
Appellant filed his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction, asking
that his bail be reduced to $150,000.
On May 19, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s request. At
that hearing, Appellant presented evidence that prior to his arrest he was gainfully
employed, owned no real property, owned three vehicles (two of which were
encumbered by a lien), and that he was otherwise financially unable to make the
$500,000 bond. His father testified that Appellant had ties to the community and was
not a flight risk.
In response, the State offered evidence that Appellant had a “short fuse and a
violent temper,” had made phone calls while in jail (recorded by the Randall County
Sheriff’s Department) where he stated his intention to confront potential witnesses
against him, had previously threatened another individual with a gun, had previously
threatened to kill some of his co-workers, and that immediately prior to his arrest, had
4
taken steps (according to the State’s theory) to flee to Canada. The State further
postulated that in the course of this offense Appellant had attempted to frame his wife
for the murder and that she had, in fact, been incarcerated for over a year before
charges against her were dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
reduced Appellant’s bail to $400,000.
When reviewing matters committed to the trial court’s sound discretion, an
appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as long as the
trial court’s ruling is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery, 810
S.W.2d at 391. Having considered the record in this case and deferring to the trial
court’s determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their
testimony, we conclude that briefs will not assist this court in reviewing the propriety of
the trial court’s decision to not reduce Appellant’s bail as much as he considered
reasonable. In accordance with Rule 31.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
we dispense with the necessity of filing briefs in this matter, and accordingly, deny
Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief. Furthermore, because we
conclude the trial court’s ruling is within the zone of reasonable disagreement about the
proper amount of bail under the circumstances of this case, we will not disturb the trial
court’s ruling. As such, the decision of the trial court to set bail at $400,000 is affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
5
Jeremy David Spielbauer v. State
Combined Opinion