Ex Parte: Anthony Lee Taylor v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00089-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE: § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

ANTHONY LEE TAYLOR § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

§ SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Lee Taylor appeals the trial court’s denial of his application for writ of habeas
corpus seeking a bond reduction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was arrested on August 23, 2023, and charged with capital murder, for which
he is currently awaiting trial. The trial court set Appellant’s bail at $1,000,000.00. Appellant
filed a motion for bond reduction. 1
The arrest warrant affidavit alleges that Appellant drove two individuals (Herbert
Simpson and Stephanie Brasher, his codefendants), to the victim’s (Warren Rogers) apartment.
Brasher went inside, while Appellant and Simpson drove away. Brasher delivered
methamphetamine to Rogers on Simpson’s behalf and talked with Rogers for approximately
thirty minutes. Simpson arrived at the apartment and got into a verbal and physical altercation

1
Although represented by counsel, Appellant’s motion was filed pro se. Counsel subsequently filed a
notice of appeal.
with Rogers, culminating in Simpson shooting Rogers in the head. Simpson took several items
of personal property from Rogers’s apartment, including a debit card, a tablet, and a cell phone,
and then returned with Brasher to Appellant’s truck. A separate witness, Simpson’s cousin,
informed law enforcement that the murder and robbery were premeditated, as he was intended to
be the driver before he heard of Appellant’s involvement.
Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking reduction of his bond to a
“reasonable amount.” At the hearing on the application, Appellant’s mother, Rowena Taylor, 2
testified that Appellant was then fifty years old, lived in Tyler, Texas, for most of his life and his
brother, niece, and nephew also lived in Smith County. Prior to his arrest, Appellant worked as a
long-haul truck driver, which meant he was regularly absent for several days at a time. Taylor
knew Appellant had previously been to prison for a drug-related offense but was not aware of
any convictions for violent crimes. She stated that he lacked any assets or property he could sell
to raise money. If Appellant were able to secure release from jail pending trial, Taylor testified
that he would have a place to stay and she would do her best to ensure he complied with any
bond conditions.
The State offered five exhibits into evidence, including an unsigned copy of the arrest
warrant affidavit for this case, two printouts detailing Appellant’s criminal history, 3 and two
police reports. The first police report, dated April 24, 2023, showed that Appellant was traveling
with Simpson in the vehicle allegedly used by Appellant related to the instant murder case. The
second police report, dated August 1, 2023, describes a traffic stop of Appellant for displaying a
false license plate, during which law enforcement searched Appellant’s vehicle and located a
small amount of methamphetamine, for which Appellant was arrested.
The trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s application for writ of habeas
corpus. This appeal followed.

BOND REDUCTION DENIAL

In Appellant’s sole issue, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for a pre-
trial bond reduction.

2
Appellant shares a surname with this witness. Throughout this opinion, we will refer to Anthony Lee
Taylor as “Appellant,” and Rowena Taylor as “Taylor.”
3
The sources of the respective printouts are not disclosed in the record.

2
Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Because the decision regarding a proper bail amount lies within the sound discretion of
the trial court, we review the trial court’s denial of a request to reduce bail for an abuse of
discretion. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (West 2023); Ex parte Rubac, 611
S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Clemons v. State, 220 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2007, no pet.). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we do not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 379-80
(Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We must determine whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or
unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. at 380. A trial court
abuses its discretion when its decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Id. at 391 (op. on reh’g).
The purpose of setting a pretrial bond is to secure an appellant’s presence at trial. See Ex
parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ex parte Rincon,
Nos. 04-13-00715-CR—04-13-00718-CR, 2014 WL 2443870, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
May 28, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The amount of bond
necessary to achieve said purpose is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion; however, the
trial court’s discretion is bounded and guided by constitutional and statutory provisions. See Ex
parte Estrada, 398 S.W.3d 723, 724 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.). The federal
constitution, our state constitution, and our state laws prohibit “excessive” bail. U.S. CONST.
Amend. VIII, TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.09 (West 2023). The
petitioner bears the burden of showing that the bail set is excessive. Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849.
“[B]ail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be
complied with[;]” however, “[t]he power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an
instrument of oppression.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(1), (2). Although a
defendant’s ability to make bail must be considered, it is not controlling. See id. art. 17.15(4);
Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d at 550. The primary considerations when assessing the reasonableness
of bail are the punishments that can be imposed and the nature of the offense. Ex parte
Ramirez-Hernandez, 642 S.W.3d 907, 917 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.); Ex parte
Melartin, 464 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). The trial court
must also consider the safety of the victim, law enforcement and the community. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(5). Additional factors to be weighed in determining the amount of

3
bond include (1) the accused’s work record, (2) the accused’s family and community ties, (3) the
accused’s length of residency, (4) the accused’s prior criminal record, (5) the accused’s
conformity with previous bond conditions, (6) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any,
and (7) aggravating circumstances allegedly involved in the charged offense. See Rubac, 611
S.W.2d at 849-50; Smith v. State, 829 S.W.2d 885, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,
pet. ref’d).
The Evidence

Appellant argues (and the State concedes) that he is financially unable to make the bail
set by the trial court, and asserts that his lifelong residency in Smith County, Texas, familial ties
to the community, and filing of a motion for speedy trial all indicate a high likelihood that he
will appear for trial. Additionally, he stresses that his personal role in the murder for which he is
charged was nonviolent, and that the State’s case against him is weak and based solely upon his
codefendants’ accomplice testimony.
We begin by examining the evidence from the hearing regarding the primary
considerations, the nature of the offense and the potential punishments, as well as the other
applicable factors.
Nature of Offense and Potential Punishment
Appellant is charged with capital murder, although the State recognized at the hearing
that Appellant’s role in the crime was “essentially the driver… to and from the robbery and
murder.” Appellant does not cite, and we do not find, any authority suggesting that a defendant
charged as a party to a capital murder offense, but who did not personally kill the victim, should
be afforded a lower bond amount. Although defense counsel stated that he was informed the
State does not intend to seek the death penalty, if convicted, Appellant may still receive a
sentence of life imprisonment without parole. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.31(a)(2) (West
2023). Based on the serious nature of the crime and the substantial penalty if convicted, the trial
court could have reasonably concluded that Appellant has a strong incentive to flee the
jurisdiction. See Ex parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d 878, 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2014, no pet.).
Safety of Law Enforcement and Community
The allegation that Appellant was involved in a violent, premeditated robbery and murder
raises a generalized concern for the community’s safety. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

4
17.15(5); Chavez v. State, 671 S.W.3d 775, 786 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2023, no pet.) (release
of accused murderer creates generalized safety concern, but scant evidence of actual threat does
not support $1,000,000.00 bail). However, no evidence was adduced at the hearing to show a
particular threat to the community or law enforcement if Appellant was released. 4 A defendant’s
criminal history can suggest that the defendant would be a danger to the public if released on
bail, but in this case, the record shows that (1) the majority of Appellant’s prior convictions are
more than twenty years old, and (2) none of his prior convictions were for violent offenses. See
Ex parte Hanson, No. 02-22-00045-CR, 2022 WL 1496533, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May
12, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). On this record, this factor does not
weigh substantially for or against a high bail amount.
Financial Resources and Ability to Make Bail
To show the inability to make bail, a defendant must show that his funds and his family’s
funds have been exhausted. Ex parte Reyes-Martinez, 653 S.W.3d 273, 281 (Tex. App.—Austin
2022, no pet.). Unless he does so, he must usually show that he made an unsuccessful effort to
furnish bail before bail can be determined to be excessive. Id. (citing Milner v. State, 263
S.W.3d 146, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.)). But when the uncontradicted
evidence demonstrates the defendant’s financial inability to make the bail, we will not require
him to do a “useless thing.” Hanson, 2022 WL 1496533, at *6. Nonetheless, “[t]his factor will
not favor bond reduction … when the defendant makes vague references to inability to make
bond without detailing his specific assets and financial resources.” Id. (citing Cooley v. State,
232 S.W.3d 228, 236 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)).
The length of Appellant’s incarceration since his arrest in August 2023 implies that he
cannot pay the bond imposed by the trial court, and at the hearing, the State’s counsel stipulated
to Appellant’s inability to pay. However, Appellant presented almost no evidence regarding his
or his family’s financial resources. Taylor’s testimony pertaining to this factor was only that
Appellant owns no assets or property that he could sell to raise money to make bail. Taylor did
not testify regarding the amount of money available to Appellant or specify any bond amount
that Appellant could afford. 5 Moreover, Appellant presented no testimonial or documentary

4
The safety of the victim is also a factor; however, in this case, the victim is deceased.
5
On appeal, Appellant requests that we either grant a “PR bond with conditions” or reduce his bond
amount to $50,000.00.

5
evidence regarding any attempts by himself, Taylor, or any other person to raise money, employ
a bail bond company, or otherwise furnish bail. The lack of specific and detailed evidence about
Appellant’s financial circumstances, or those of his family, weighs against a reduction of his
bond amount. See Reyes-Martinez, 653 S.W.3d at 282; Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d at 883.
Remaining Rubac Factors
Appellant has lived in Smith County his whole life and has family ties to the area.
Although Taylor did not expressly state where Appellant would live if released, her testimony
implied that he would stay with her, and she averred that she would work to help him comply
with any bond conditions. These factors weigh in Appellant’s favor. See Ex parte Flores, No.
12-21-00079-CR, 2021 WL 3922919, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 1, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication). Taylor also testified that Appellant was employed as a long-haul
truck driver prior to his arrest but did not specify with whom he was employed or how long he
worked for any particular employer, which does not necessarily demonstrate any additional
community ties or substantiate the likelihood that Appellant would appear at trial. The record
contains no evidence concerning other outstanding bonds or previous noncompliance with bond
conditions. These factors similarly do not weigh strongly for or against a reduction of
Appellant’s bond amount.
Analysis
In seeking a bond reduction, it is the defendant’s burden to show that the amount of bail
is excessive and outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. See Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849;
Ex parte Kienlen, No. 02-22-00154-CR, 2022 WL 15053326, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Oct. 27, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Although the bail amount in
this case is substantial, under the facts presented, Appellant failed to carry his burden.
As aforementioned, Appellant provided no evidence about the amount or exhaustion of
his or his family’s specific assets or financial resources, nor does the record contain any
testimonial or documentary evidence of what efforts, if any, were made to furnish bail in the
amounts set by the trial court, or any evidence suggesting that such attempts would be useless.
See Kienlen, 2022 WL 15053326, at *10; Ex parte Lucas, No. 06-20-00127-CR, 2021 WL
1181202, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (citing defendant’s “failure to demonstrate specific, unsuccessful attempts to post
bond” in upholding $1,000,000.00 bail amount in murder case). Further, a defendant’s inability

6
to pay the bail amount set by the trial court does not by itself render the bail amount excessive
and given the lack of detail in the evidence presented regarding Appellant’s claimed inability to
make bail, the trial court could have concluded that the amount of bail set by it was reasonable.
See Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d at 550; Ex parte Goodson, No. 01-15-00288-CR, 2015 WL
1868771, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 21, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (defendant did not present any documentary evidence of his assets or
financial resources and because of “the dearth of evidence presented by [defendant] regarding his
finances,” trial court could have concluded that bail amount was reasonable). Moreover, other
factors, namely the nature of Appellant’s alleged crime and the potential life sentence that crime
carries, both support setting a high bail amount to ensure Appellant’s presence at trial. See Ex
parte Nimnicht, 467 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.) (“When
determining reasonable bail, a trial court shall give the most weight to the nature of the offense
and the length of the possible sentence.”) (citing Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849).
Case law is of somewhat limited utility in addressing the issue of the appropriate amount
of bail “because appellate decisions on bail matters are often brief and avoid extended
discussions, and because the ‘cases are so individualized that generalization from results reached
in others is difficult.’” Ramirez-Hernandez, 642 S.W.3d at 921 (quoting Ex parte Beard, 92
S.W.3d 566, 571 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d)). However, a review of other cases may
still be instructive. See Ex parte Youngker, No. 12-22-00298-CR, 2023 WL 2298758, at *5
(Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 28, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). While a
$1,000,000.00 bond may be substantial, we note that several intermediate appellate courts in
Texas have upheld this bail amount for defendants charged with the offenses of murder and
capital murder. 6
After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, and
considering the factors set forth in Article 17.15 and Rubac, we conclude that the trial court did

6
See, e.g., Ex parte Barrera, No. 11-21-00131-CR, 2021 WL 5934626, at *3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Dec.
16, 2021) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte Moreno, No. 01-20-00312-CR, 2021 WL 4733239,
at *13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 12, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte
Lucas, No. 06-20-00127-CR, 2021 WL 1181202, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication); Ex parte Temple, 595 S.W.3d 825, 830–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019,
pet. ref’d); Ex parte Brossett, 524 S.W.3d 273, 277 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. ref’d) (citing Ex parte Lewis, No.
10–13–00448–CR, 2014 WL 2810629, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 19, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated
for publication)).

7
not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s request for pre-trial bond reduction. We overrule
Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas
relief.

GREG NEELEY
Justice

Opinion delivered July 10, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

8
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 10, 2024

NO. 12-24-00089-CR

EX PARTE: ANTHONY LEE TAYLOR,

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-2139-23)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the
judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the
court below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.