EMMITT ALFRED BALLARD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there is no absolute right to bail pending appeal and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
Appellant, convicted of fondling a child, sought bail reduction through state and federal habeas corpus petitions after his direct appeal was pending.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bail Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a Texas state convict for a writ of ha-beas corpus. We affirm.
Appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted by a jury of fondling a child and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. His direct appeal is now pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Bail pending appeal was set by the trial court at $30,000. Appellant filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in that court for reduction of bail. While that petition was pending appellant petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus instructing the trial court to hold a hearing on his ha-beas petition. Mandamus was denied, and the trial court denied the habeas petition. Appellant then applied to the Court of Criminal Appeals' for habeas corpus and reduction of bond, which motion was denied.
Appellant then applied to the federal district court seeking reduction of bond. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, and we affirm.
There is no absolute right to bail pending appeal. Grech v. Purdy, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F. 2d 304; United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 5 Cir. 1969, 408 F. 2d 7, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895, 90 S.Ct. 192, 24 L.Ed.2d 172; Sellers v. Georgia, 5 Cir. 1967, 374 F. 2d 84. There being no exceptional circumstances present in this case, we will not interfere with the state courts’ determination as to the amount of bail which will ensure a defendant’s presence while his appeal is pending. See Fink v. Heyd, supra; Sellers v. Georgia, supra. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hooks v. 4TH Dist. Court OF Appeal, 442 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States ex rel. Stephen Fink v. Heyd, 408 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1969)
- James v. New York, 396 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1969)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 396 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1969)
- Foster Sellers v. State OF Ga., 374 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Boslough v. United States, 426 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Grech v. Purdy, 426 F.2d 304 (5th Cir. 1970)