ACCEPTED
03-15-00265-CR
6183441
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
7/22/2015 4:17:21 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-15-00265-CR
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT AUSTIN,
OF TEXAS TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/22/2015 4:17:21 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
ROBIE LEE LAWHON
Appellant
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
On appeal from the 20th Judicial District Court of Milam County, Texas
The Honorable John Youngblood, Judge Presiding
Cause No. 36,868
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Counsel of Record:
Tyler Pennington
State Bar No. 24076617
Pennington Law PLLC
106 S. Harris St. Suite 125
Round Rock, TX 78664
PH: (512) 255-2733
FAX: (866) 736-3690
tylerpenningtonlawp1lc.net
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
INDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
PARTIES TO THE JUDGMENT:
APPELLANT: Robie Lee Lawbon
Milam County Jail
512 N. Jefferson Ave.
Cameron, TX 76520
APPELLEE: W.W. Torrey
District Attorney
District Attorney’s Office of Milam County, Texas
204 N. Central
Cameron, TX 76520
PH: (254) 697-7013
FAX: (254) 697-7016
wwtorreymilamcounty.net
PRESIDING JUDGE: The Honorable John Youngblood
DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL: Tyler Pennington
106 5. Harris St., Suite 125
Round Rock, TX 78664
TRIAL PROSECUTORS: W.W. Torrey
District Attorney Milam County, Texas
204 N. Central
Cameron, TX 76520
APPELLANT COUNSEL: Tyler Pennington
Pennington Law PLLC
106 5. Harris St., Suite 125
Round Rock, TX 78664
PH: (512) 255-2733
FAX: (866) 736-3690
tyIerpenningtonlawpl1c.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iii
STATEMENT OF CASE iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT v
ISSUE PRESENTED V
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY SETTING EXCESSIVE
BAIL IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 17.15 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
STATEMENT OF FACTS I
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 3
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 3-11
PRAYER II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LIMIT 12
Ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TEXAS CASES
Er Porte Jamell D. Brooks, 376 S.W.3d 222 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012) 3, 4,
5,8,9,10
Ex Porte Richard Enij/ Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) 3,6,
7
Ex Porte Faw Bit/kin, Juan Dc Ia Cnc and Richard Boivker, 553 S.W.2d 116
(Tex.Crirn.App. 1977) 5, 6,
7
Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588, 592-93 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no
pet.) 10
STATUTES AND RULES
TEX. PEN. CODE § 19.04 iv
TEX. PEN. CODE §22.01(a)(1) iv
U.S. CONST. AMEND VIII V, 3,4, 11
TEX.CONST.ART.I, 13 V,3,4, 11
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 17.15 V, 3,5, 8, 11
III
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Robie Lee Lawhon, Appellant, and respectfully submits this
brief alleging error from a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction for a
Second Degree Felony Manslaughter.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robie Lee Lawhon was indicted under TEX. PEN. CODE § 19.04 for two
second-degree felony manslaughter offenses. (CR1: 3). The Writ of Habeas Corpus
Seeking Bail Reduction also sought to reduce the bond on a second-degree felony
assault causing serious bodily injury in violation of TEX. PEN. CODE §
22.02(a)(1). Mr. Lawhon has not been indicted on the assault causing serious
bodily injury Robie Lee Lawhon’s bond was set at $250,000 for each count of
manslaughter and $ 100,00 for the assault causing serious bodily injury. (CR1: 8).
Mr. Lawhon, through undersigned counsel, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Seeking Bail Reduction on all three cases. A hearing on all three motions was
conducted in front of the Honorable John Youngblood on April 30, 2015. At the
conclusion of the hearing the judge reduced Mr. Lawhon’s bond to $ 150,00 for
each manslaughter case and $20,000 for the assault causing serious bodily injury,
totaling $320,000.00. (CR1: 12; RR1: 25). A Notice of Appeal on each case was
timely filed on May 8, 2015. (CR1: 15). The briefs for this cause, 03-15-00277-
iv
CR, and the briefs in cause numbers 03-15-00265-CR and 03-15-00288-CR are
being submitted separately, however they are substantively the same since all cases
involve the same issues of fact and law.
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument will not aid the court’s decisional process in this appeal
ISSUE PRESENTED
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY SETTING
EXCESSIVE BAIL IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 17.15 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
V
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The State indicted Robie Lee Lawhon on two counts of second-degree
felony manslaughter on March 19, 2015. (CR1: 3). Upon his arrest on April 14,
2015, his bond was set at $250,000 for each case. On the same date a $l00,00.00
bond was also set on a second-degree felony assault causing serious bodily injury.
(CR1: 8). To date, Mr. Lawhon has not been indicted on the second-degree felony
assault causing serious bodily injury.
On April 23, 2015, Mr. Layton, through undersigned counsel filed three
Application for Habeas Corpus Bail Reduction Motions. (CR1: 9). On April 30,
20th
2015, the hearing on those motions was heard by the District Court of Milam
County, the Honorable Judge Youngblood presiding. At the hearing, the trial court
heard testimony from Catherine Jean Martinez, Mr. Lawhon’s mother; Linda
Matysek, a long time family friend of Mr. Lawhon and Mr. Lawhon’s friend’s
mother; and Lisa Roden from Rockin R and Pistol Bail Bonds. Mr. Lawhon did
not testify. (RRI: 1-23)
Catherine Martinez testified at the hearing that Mr. Lawhon has resided at
either her house or his grandmother’s house in Milarn County, Texas, for the last
twenty-two years. She further testified that Mr. Lawhon graduated from Rockdale
High School (located in Milam County, Texas) in 2010 and has consistently
maintained successful employment since his high school graduation. Ms. Martinez
1
stated that she would allow Mr. Lawhon to reside at her house if released on bond.
She also stated that Mr. Lawhon had cooperated with the Texas Department of
Public Safety (DPS) during their nearly year long investigation before he was
taken into custody and that he never missed one appointment with DPS in regard to
their investigation. (RRI: 8-15).
There was evidence presented that Mr. Lawhon had previously been on
deferred adjudication for possession of a controlled substance and that he
successfully completed deferred adjudication with no violations. Mr. Lawhon has
no other criminal history outside of the deferred adjudication. Mr. Lawhon never
missed a court appearance for that case and never failed to make a meeting with
probation. (RR1: 11, 13).
Catherine Martinez testified that their family has been unable to secure the
funds necessary to pay for the bonds. She further testified that they have been
unable to secure a loan or sell property in a sufficient amount to pay the bonds. Ms.
Martinez testified that she could afford bonds in the range of $5,000 per case.
(RR1: 10-11, 13-14)
Linda Matysek testified that she has known Mr. Lawhon since he was fifteen
years old and went to high school with her son. She further testified that Mr.
Lawhon was a helpful kid and believed that his reputation in the community was
2
“fine”. She has never had any legal problems with Mr. Lawhon. She also indicated
that she would be willing to help him appear at court if necessary. (RRI: 16-17).
Lisa Roden a local bail bonds owner testified that she has spoken with Mr.
Lawhon’s family about his bond. She testified that she has written a bond on a
different manslaughter case in which an out-of-state defendant had his bond
reduced to $10,000.00. She further testified that she is unable to write a bond over
$50,000.00 for each of Mr. Lawhon’s cases. Mrs. Roden testified that she did not
believe that Mr. Lawhon was a flight risk and that he would show up to court and
“do the right thing.” (RRI: 19-21).
The State called no witnesses at the hearing, and only the evidenced the
stated introduced was a copy of the Probable Cause Affidavit.
Summary of the Argument
First Issue: The trial court abused its discretion by setting excessive bail in
violation of the United States and Texas Constitution and Article 17.15 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Argument and Authorities
The trial court’s ruling is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Kr Pane
Jame/ID. Brooks, 376 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012) (Gabriel, L.
dissenting) quoting Ex Pane Richard Emil Rubac, 611 S. W.2d 848 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981)
and Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, no pet.).
3
To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court of Appeals
must decide whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding principles and
if the act was arbitrary or unreasonable. The burden of proof is upon the applicant who
claims bail was excessive. & Porte ionic/i D. Brooks, 376 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex.App.
Fort Worth 2012) (Gabriel, L. dissenting) quoting Exporte Hint!, 138 S.W.3d 503,505
(Tex.App.-Foit Worth 2004, pet. Reid) (citing Montgomen’ v. State, 810 S.W.2d
372,380 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990)).
In setting bail, the trial court must strike a balance between a defendant’s
presumption of innocence and the State’s interest in assuring the defendant appears
at trial. Ex Porte joniell D. Brooks, 376 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth
2012) (Gabriel, L. dissenting) quoting Exporte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 573
(Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. Reid). Both the United States Constitution and the
Texas Constitution prohibit excessive bail. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex.
Const. art. I, § 13. Bail is excessive it if is “set in an amount greater than is
reasonably necessary to satis1 the government’s legitimate interests.” Id.
The Court should consider the following criteria when establishing a
defendant’s bond: 1) the bail shall be sufficiently high to reasonably assure
compliance; 2) the bail shall not be used as an instrument of oppression; 3) the bail
shall reflect the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was
committed; 4) the bail shall take into account the ability of the defendant to make
4
the bail and the evidence proffered on this point; and 5) the bail shall assure the
future safety of the victim of the alleged offense and the community. TEX. CODE
CMM. PROC. ANN. ART. 17.15.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, stated that in determining whether
bond set by the trial court is excessive the court should weigh: 1) the accused’s
work record; 2) the accused’s family ties; 3) the accused’s length of residence; 4)
the accused’s prior criminal record, if any; 5) the accused’s conformity with the
conditions of any previous bond; 6) the existence of any outstanding bonds, if any;
and 7) aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged
offense. Brooks, 376 S.W.3d at 223.
In & Porte Pave Bit/kin, Juan Dc la Cruz and Richard Bowker, 553 S.W.2d 116
(Tex.Crim.App. 1977), the State presented evidence at the bail reduction hearing that
each appellant had been charged with first degree felony conspiracy to commit capital
murder, punishable by five to ninety-nine years in the Texas penitentiary. Each
appellant’s bail was set at $150,000. In Buficin, the only evidence the State introduced at
the hearing was the indictment charging the appellants with the offense. The State
presented no evidence about the facts or details of the alleged offense. Buficin 553 S.W.2d
at 117.
The appellants in BuJkin introduced undisputed evidence that appellant
Bowker was gainfully employed and had stable housing. There was also evidence
5
introduced that fifteen years prior to the current offense, Bowker had been placed
on a five-year probation, which he successfully completed. Bowker had not been
in any trouble since successfully completing probation. Id.
Similarly, the undisputed evidence presented by appellants Bufkin and De Ia
Cruz showed they had no criminal history, stable housing and employment. De Ia
Cruz also presented evidence that his efforts to make the $200,000 bail had been
unsuccessful and that the highest bail he could make would be $15,000 or S20,000.
The record in Bujkin contained no evidence by the State that the appellants would
not appear for court. Id.
Taking into consideration all of the above, the Court of Criminal Appeals in
Bujkin found that the $150,000 bail set by the trial court was excessive and reduced
the bail set for each appellant at $15,000. Idat 118.
In Ex Pane Richard Emil Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981), Rubac
was appealing a ten-year sentence on the following convictions: possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, and
possession of LSD. The trial court set the appeal bond for Rubac at $100,000. Rubac, 611
S.W.2d at 849.
At the hearing to reduce the $100,000, Rubac presented evidence that he had
complied with the conditions of his previous bonds and that he had made all court
appearances required of him. The record also contained evidence that appellant had
6
no prior criminal history and had a significant amount of education. The only
evidence introduced by the State was on cross-examination in an attempt to show
that the bail would only cost Rubac $7,500. Appellant presented evidence that he
only had about $3,000 to use for appeal bond on the case. Id.
Based on the above facts in Rubac, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that
there were no aggravating factors surrounding the offense, that Rubac had no prior
criminal history, that Rubac had a limited ability to make bail, that Rubac was
educated and had the ability’ to pursue gainful employment, that Rubac had
previously conformed to the conditions of his prior bond, and that Ritbac had
familial ties to the area. Therefore, they found the trial court abused its discretion
in setting the bail at $100,000 and reduced the bail to $25,000. Idat 850.
Similar to BuJkin and Rubac, the evidence presented in Mr. Lawhon’s bond
reduction hearing showed that he has been a twenty-two year resident of Milam
County and that he was gainfully employed in the past and at the time of the
current offense. The records further showed his relatively little criminal history,
which included only one prior deferred adjudication, which he successfully
completed without incident. (RR1: 8-9, 11, 13).
Also like the testimony in Rubac, testimony from Mr. Lawhon’s mother
indicated there efforts to make the current bond amounts had been unsuccessful.
Testimony by bail bond company owner, Lisa Roden, indicated she had been
7
working with Mr. Lawhon’s family regarding the bond. Ms. Roden further
testified she would be willing to write the bond because she didn’t believe Mr.
Lawhon was a “flight risk” and that she has no doubt “that he’s going to show up
to court and do the right thing.” Furthermore, Ms. Roden testified that she was
unable to write anything overa $50,000 bond. (RRI; 10-lI, 13-14, 19-21).
The State presented no evidence disputing the above facts. The State did not
dispute that Mr. Lawhon cooperated with DPS during their investigation of the
offense and never missed any appointments at DPS’ request. Mr. Lawhon even
turned himself in at the request of DPS. (RR: 10-12).
Although the trial court reduced Mr. Lawhon’s bond at the bond reduction
hearing, it still set the bond outside the realm of attainability for Mr. Lawhon and
his family. Considering all the factors under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
ART. 17.15, in its ruling, the only factor the trial court held against bond reduction
to an affordable amount for Mr. Lawhon was the nature of the alleged offense.
When a court reviews the appropriate bail for a particular offense, appellate courts
often compare bail amounts in other cases of the same degree. This is relevant
because offenses of the same degree carry the same punishment range, which is a
proper consideration in determining the nature of the offense charged. Brooks, 376
S.W.3d at 227. In Mr. Lawhon’s case, the bail bond company owner, Lisa Roden,
testified that she has written a $10,000 bond out of the same court for a previous
8
manslaughter case. (RRI: 20). The evidence in that case indicated that the
defendant lived out of state, which would make him a higher flight risk than Mr.
Lawbon, who has consistently lived in the Milam County area for twenty-two
years.
Furthermore, there was undisputed evidence that Mr. Lawhon had a good
work history (having stable employment since high school and at the time of the
incident), strong ties to the community and lengthy residence in Milam County
(having family in the Milam County area and himself being a Milam County
resident for twenty-two years), minimal criminal history (one prior possession of
controlled substance in which he successfully completed deferred adjudication),
and compliance with previous bond and probation conditions (evidence that he
never missed previous court dates, probation meetings, and fully cooperated with
DPS during their investigation of this case). (RR1: 8-18). There was no evidence
presented about aggravating factors in the present offense. See Brooks, 376 S.W.3d
at 223.
There was no evidence presented that the excessively high bonds in Mr.
Lawhon’s three cases are necessary to assure his appearance in court or necessary
to protect the safety of the victim or the community, nor was there any evidence of
the specific circumstances or aggravated circumstances surrounding the event. The
State only presented speciflcs regarding the offense through the Probable Cause
9
Affidavit introduced into evidence. Based on the hicts &om the hearing and the
applicable law, Mr. Lawhon’s bail is “greater than reasonably necessary to satis&
the government’s legitimate interests.” See Brooks’, 376 S.W.3d at 225.
An abuse of discretion review requires more than the appellate court simply
deciding that the trial court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The appellate
court must measure the trial court’s ruling against the relevant criteria by which the
ruling was made. Montalvo v. State, 315 S.W.3d 588, 592-93 (Tex.App.-Houston
[1st Dist.) 2010, no pet.).
Although the trial court in this case lowered Mr. Lawhon’s bonds from
$250,000.00 to $150,000.00 for each manslaughter case and from $100,00.00 to
$20,000.00 for the assault causing serious bodily injury case (RR: 1 25, CR1: 12),
there ruling was both arbitrary and without guiding principles. No evidence was
presented by the State that the bail amount set was necessary to ensure Mr.
Lawhon’s compliance. The Court’s ruling even stated that Mr. Lawhon has
cooperated with the investigation and shown up when requested, along with
appearing in the past when required to do so. (RR: 24). This evidence alone shows
that he has complied with previous bond conditions. See Brooks, 376 S.W.3d at
223.
Mr. Lawhon’s family testified that they were unable to make the current bail
amounts and that they could only afford a bond in the area of $5,000.00 for each
10
case. (RR 1: 11). Lisa Roden testified that she is unable to write a bond that
exceeds $50,000.00. (RRI: 20-2 1). Additionally, the court set one bond (second
degree assault) $130,000.00 higher than the bond on the other two cases (second
degree manslaughter). (RR: 1 25, CR1: 12). However, the Court did not make any
mention of the ability of Mr. Lawhon to make the current bail or the ability of a
bond company that could write the bail amounts set in its ruling. (RRI: 24-25).
One can only presume from the court’s ruling that the court used the bail as
an instrument of oppression. The court’s only reference to any of the legal criteria
was to the seriousness of the offense, making it clear that they court only took into
account this factor while ignoring the other relevant factors under TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 17.15.
Applying the above facts against the relevant criteria considered in the bond
reduction ruling, Mr. Lawhon has sufficiently met his burden in showing the trial
court abused their discretion by setting excessive bail in violation of the United
States and Texas Constitution and Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISIS CONSIDERED, Appellant Robie Lee Lawhon,
asks the court to: reduce the bond in Cause numbers 03-15-00277-CR, 03-15-
00265-CR and 03-15-00288-CR.
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this
brief was served by mail to counsel for the State, W.W. Torrey, District Attorney,
Milam County District Attorney’s Office 204 N. Central Cameron, TX 76520, PH:
(254) 697-7013, FAX: (254) 697-7016 on July 22, 2015 via facsimile transmission.
in
Tyler Pennington /7/V
Attorney for Appellant 7/
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD LIMIT
The undersigned counsel represents that they have relied on the word count
tool in the Word document and that this brief is a I of 2595 words.
Tyler Pennington
Attorney for Appellant
12
Robie Lee Lawhon v. State
Combined Opinion