Ex Parte Zachary Dixon Parker v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-23-00029-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 13, 2023; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Zachary Dixon Parker faces two counts of first-degree theft with bail set at $1,500,000 for each charge. He sought habeas relief to reduce bail to $50,000 per charge, but the trial court denied this request, leading to his appeal, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Parker's charges relate to a contract for constructing a multi-million-dollar RV park in Parker County, Texas. He allegedly received payments totaling $2,709,600 from the park owner but did not use these funds for the intended project. Instead, he reportedly spent the money on personal items and other client projects, including purchasing heavy machinery valued at approximately $500,000. The affidavits indicated that Parker has substantial liquid assets, estimated between three to four million dollars, raising concerns about flight risk and justifying a high bond amount.

At the hearing, Parker's wife, April Hahnfeld, testified about their living situation and financial arrangements. They reside in an investment property in Benbrook, Texas, owned by the Parker Family Trust. Hahnfeld clarified that the Pilot Point residence mentioned in the affidavit was sold in 2021 and that Parker does not hold equity in their current home. She stated that Parker’s construction business, employing around thirty workers, is engaged in multiple ongoing projects and owns substantial equipment, but all assets are encumbered by liens or receivership. Hahnfeld acknowledged limited knowledge of Parker's business dealings and their structure, although she confirmed that he has significant control over the financial aspects of his ventures. She also mentioned her involvement in business development for one of Parker's LLCs, though she was unsure of the specifics regarding her compensation.

Hahnfeld has a personal investment account worth approximately $60,000 and around $13,000 in cash. She testified that Parker owns a condominium with several encumbrances, yielding no profit upon sale. Both Hahnfeld and Parker have royalty interests in a water pipeline generating $10,000 to $15,000 monthly, which covers their living expenses. Hahnfeld was unaware of any other bank accounts owned by Parker and noted he has no criminal record or probation history; however, she recently surrendered his passport to probation authorities. Deputy Scurry expressed concerns regarding Parker's Pilot Point home, used for his businesses and listed on his driver's license, which he claimed Parker owned without verifying property records. Scurry noted challenges in tracing Parker's assets due to their registration under an LLC, discovering heavy machinery valued at approximately $1.3 million. He contradicted Hahnfeld's claim that all equipment was encumbered, confirming that some valued at $475,000 was purchased outright. Parker sought to reduce his bail to $50,000, citing his community ties and lack of unencumbered assets, but the State opposed, highlighting the $3.5 million taken from the RV park owner, unaccounted funds, and the obscured nature of Parker's assets through LLCs. The trial court denied Parker's habeas relief request, leading to his appeal. Bail determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the primary purpose being to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial, while not serving as a means of oppression.

The appellant must prove that the trial court's bail decision is excessive, as established in Ex parte Rodriguez. Courts assess reasonable bail based on several factors, including the nature of the offense, potential sentence length, the defendant's community ties, ability to post bail, past criminal history, adherence to previous bond conditions, and safety concerns for the victim and community (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15(a)(1)). 

Parker faces two felony counts of first-degree theft, with a potential sentence of up to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment (Tex. Penal Code Ann. 12.32(a)). Although the nonviolent nature of theft is a mitigating factor, the severity of the potential sentence can justify higher bail to ensure the accused appears at trial, as noted in Ex parte Temple and Rubac. Consequently, the trial court had valid grounds to deny Parker's request for reduced bail.

Parker has strong community ties, including family and established businesses in the area. However, his financial situation is complex; while Parker and his partner, Hahnfeld, reported limited liquid assets, they also have substantial income from royalty interests and ownership in LLCs with valuable equipment. The trial court could reasonably question Parker's inability to pay bail given the unclear financial status of his assets and the significant amounts allegedly stolen.

Additionally, there is no evidence of Parker having a prior criminal record or bond history, which may weigh in his favor. Ultimately, the trial court has the discretion to evaluate witness credibility and determine bail based on the totality of circumstances.

The trial court's evaluation of future safety concerns regarding the alleged victim and the community extends beyond physical violence, particularly when considering financial safety related to theft crimes. Although theft is classified as a nonviolent crime, the implications of stealing credit card information and its effects on victims are significant in assessing community safety for bail purposes. Testimony indicated that Parker was involved in lucrative construction projects, and only he could provide a complete account of his business dealings. Given Parker's alleged history of client theft, the trial court had reasonable grounds to be concerned for the safety of Parker's clients if he retained access to substantial business finances. Consequently, the trial court's decision to deny Parker's bail reduction request was justified based on the length of his sentence, doubts about his ability to pay, and community safety concerns. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with no abuse of discretion found in its ruling.