Ex Parte Warren Eugene Thompson ( 2005 )

Affirmed and Opinion filed February17, 2005

Affirmed and Opinion filed February17, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00731-CR

____________

EX PARTE WARREN EUGENE THOMPSON

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 46,411

O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals from the trial court=s denial of appellant=s petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Appellant raises two issues.  We affirm.

Appellant was arrested for injury to a child and bail was set at $100,000. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court reduced bail to $60,000 with the conditions that appellant remain in Dallas County and have no contact with any child under the age of 18 years.  The State subsequently moved to increase bail because appellant was found in Brazoria County in the home of a child under the age of 18.  The trial court revoked appellant=s bond and ordered appellant held on no bond status.  Appellant filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus and, after a hearing, the trial court denied the petition.

Appellant first claims the trial court abused its discretion in revoking bond because the bond conditions were unreasonable, vague, contradictory, and constitutionally excessive.  As a condition of bond, the trial court stated that appellant was to have no contact with any child under age 18 and that appellant was to remain in Dallas County, with reporting to the Brazoria County Community Supervision Department. By statute, a magistrate may secure a defendant=s attendance at trial by imposing any reasonable condition of bond related to the safety of a victim or of the community.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.40(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).  Here, appellant was charged with two counts of injury to a child.  The conditions clearly related to the safety of the victim and the community. Furthermore, one of the victims lived in Brazoria County.  Under these circumstances, the conditions were reasonable. 

Additionally, appellant did not object to these conditions when they were imposed. By failing to object to the conditions in the trial court, appellant failed to preserve error.  Smith v. State, 993 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref=d). Finally, appellant admitted at the hearing that he understood these conditions.  Thus, we find no merit to appellant=s complaint that the conditions were unreasonable, vague, or excessive.

Appellant next complains that the evidence was legally insufficient to order appellant held without bail.  As to this issue, appellant only argues that no witnesses were presented at the hearing to show appellant is a danger to the victim or to the community.  The trial court considered all prior proceedings, testimony, pleadings and the evidence showing that appellant had violated the conditions of his bond.  At the hearing on June 17, 2004, the State presented one witness, a criminal investigator for the City of Pearland Police Department, who testified that, after receiving a call from CPS, he went to the residence of Sheila Crowder, where he saw a Ford truck in the driveway.  Hunt testified that, after he was invited into the home by Crowder, he initially only saw Crowder and her baby, but Crowder took Hunt to a utility room where he found the appellant.  Hunt testified that appellant indicated his understanding that he was not supposed to be in Brazoria County or in the presence of a child.  Hunt testified he did not arrest appellant, but told him to leave Crowder=s residence and take his clothing and other articles with him. Hunt testified it was apparent from dishes in the living room that two people had eaten dinner there.  Appellant also testified, and admitted he was present at Crowder=s home.  Appellant further admitted he understood the bond conditions.

This testimony was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine that appellant had not complied with the conditions of his bond.  At the hearing on appellant=s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court took judicial notice of this evidence adduced at the June 17, 2004, hearing.  The court had sufficient evidence to determine that appellant would not comply with the conditions of bond.  Accordingly, we find no merit to appellant=s claim of insufficient evidence. 

We affirm the trial court=s denial of appellant=s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed February 17, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).