Ex Parte: Marlin Moore

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-08-00259-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 25, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Marlin Moore's appeal against the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus by the 41st District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Moore was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), second offense, and initially posted a $750 surety bond without the condition of using an ignition interlock device. On June 24, 2008, a modification order was issued, requiring him to only drive vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock. Moore objected, arguing that the modification violated TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.09, which prohibits imposing additional bail conditions after bail has been set unless there is a defect in the bond or sufficient reason. He also claimed his due process rights were violated due to the lack of a hearing or evidence supporting the modification.

The district court denied Moore's application, prompting his appeal where he raised five key issues: (1) The court erred in allowing bond modification after his initial bail was set; (2) his constitutional rights were violated by imposing additional conditions without a hearing; (3) the original magistrate's release implied that the interlock requirement was not in the interest of justice; (4) the subsequent judge violated legal provisions by requiring the interlock device improperly; and (5) due process was breached by imposing new conditions without evidence of non-compliance with the original conditions.

The appellate court's standard of review involves evaluating the facts favorably to the district court's ruling, ensuring deference is given unless there is an abuse of discretion, particularly regarding bail settings.

An appellate court will refrain from intervening in a trial court's ruling if it is within reasonable disagreement, even if the appellate court would have made a different decision regarding bail. The defendant must demonstrate that bail is excessive, as outlined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution. The appellant argues that the district court incorrectly ruled that the trial court could modify the bond after the appellant had already provided bail unless there was a defect in the original bond or another valid reason. Although the appellant acknowledges that Texas law may allow bond modification, he contends that such modification violates due process principles, especially considering the time elapsed since his original release without factual support for the modification. 

Texas courts cannot disregard specific statutory provisions, and a trial court cannot abuse its discretion by adhering to these provisions. Article 17.09 states that a defendant who has posted bail should not be required to post another bond in the same case, except under certain conditions outlined in Article 17.09.3, which allows modification if the original bond is deemed defective, excessive, or insufficient. The trial court must release the defendant once a new bond is approved.

Additionally, Article 17.441 mandates that defendants charged with certain DWI offenses must install an ignition interlock device on their vehicles upon release. The defendant cannot operate a vehicle without this device unless the magistrate determines it is not in the interest of justice. The appellant posted a surety bond in July 2006; however, in June 2008, the trial court modified the bond to include the interlock device, citing the original bond's defectiveness under Article 17.09.3. The trial court's actions were compliant with the relevant statutory provisions, and the appellate court found no abuse of discretion, overruling the first issue. In the second issue, the appellant claims his due process rights were violated due to additional bond requirements imposed without a hearing or findings concerning the deficiencies stipulated in Article 17.09.3.

Following the appellant's objection to the interlock requirement filed on June 24, 2008, the trial court conducted a hearing on June 25, 2008, and issued findings on July 10, 2008. The court determined that the appellant did not provide evidence that the interlock installation was not in the best interest of justice as per Article 17.441(b), concluding that the requirement was justified. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and overruled Issue Two. In subsequent issues, the appellant argued that the original magistrate's release without the interlock implied its absence was justifiable, that the subsequent trial judge violated Article 17.441(c) by imposing the interlock requirement too late, and that new release conditions violated his due process rights without evidence of non-compliance. However, TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1 mandates that complaints must be presented to the trial court for ruling before they can be appealed. The record indicated that these complaints were not raised in the trial court, leading to their waiver for appeal. Consequently, Issues Three, Four, and Five were also overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.