X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On June 17, 2004, the state indicted Dennis Joe Pharris for the felony offense of forgery of a United States government instrument. Bond was originally set at $10,000 and later increased to $100,000. Pharris made bail and was released on June 27, 2004. The state filed its second criminal complaint against Pharris on Dec. 15, 2004, for allegedly engaging in organized criminal activity. After a hearing on Dec. 21, 2004, the trial court denied bail in this second case because the state had alleged that this offense was committed while Pharris was on bond for the first case, the forgery charge. Because Article I, 11a of the Texas Constitution requires that a “no bond” order automatically expires after 60 days and the trial court must then set reasonable bail, the trial court set bail of $100,000 in this second case on Feb. 14. Later that same afternoon, but before Pharris could make bail, the state filed its third charge against Pharris, resulting in the present case (Cause No. 1016730). This time the state alleged what it called the crime of engaging in organized criminal activity to commit theft from Bank One on “various dates between September 15, 2004 and October 6, 2004.” That is, the third charge was alleged to have been committed before the second charge but after the first charge. The state once again requested a “no bond” order, so another “no bond” hearing was held on Feb. 18. The trial judge once again denied bail. There was a final hearing on March 1, during which Pharris’ attorney stated that he was ready to try the first case, the forgery case, which was the predicate offense for obtaining the “no bond” in this, the third case. The state declined to go forward on that case. The state filed a fourth charge against Pharris on April 15, the day after the most recent “no bond” order expired. The state requested yet another “no bond” order. The motion stated that the trial court denied that request and set bail on the most recent case at $100,000, bringing the current total bail to $800,000. HOLDING:Remanded. The court finds that the issue is not moot because it falls under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. Sixty days is normally too short a time period in which to fully and fairly litigate a “no bond” order, the court states. Also, “[g]iven the documented history thus far, there is a reasonable expectation that the State will continue to file additional charges against Mr. Pharris and continue to request”no bond’ orders.” Texas Constitution Article I 11a explicitly states that an order denying bail must be issued “within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of the incarceration of the accused.” In Neuenschwander v. State, 784 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), the court equated the constitutional term “incarceration” with “arrest.” Pharris was most recently “incarcerated” on Dec. 15, 2004. He has been “incarcerated” ever since. Strictly construing 11a, the court holds that only a “no bond” order entered within seven days of that date � the actual arrest date � is valid under the Texas Constitution. To trigger the “no bond” provision of the constitution, the most recent offense must be committed after the most recent bonding out of jail. To allow otherwise would defeat the presumption in favor of bail and the constitutional preference for bail. The trial judge was correct when he orally expressed his original skepticism of this procedure; he erred in signing a “no bond” order in the Bank One criminal complaint, the court concludes. The court rejects Pharris’ request that bail be reduced to $100,000. “A reduction of bail or an increase of bail is not an instrument to be used to ‘sanction’ either the accused or the State.” OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.