EX PARTE BAUTISTA RENTERIA v. << (2025)

OPINION

Appellant Seferino Bautista-Renteria appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was arrested on five felony charges. His bail amounts are $2,500,000 for a charge of murder, $1,000,000 for each of two aggravated assault charges, $100,000 for a deadly conduct charge, and $100,000 for an evidence tampering charge. The total bail amount is $4,700,000. Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bail reduction.

Evidence adduced at a hearing on the application shows that, on July 4, 2024, three young men arrived at Tyler's Christus Mother Frances Hospital in a pickup truck riddled with bullet holes. One of the men suffered a fatal gunshot wound to his head. The surviving men explained that they were traveling on State Highway 271 when they turned onto Old Gladewater Highway per the guidance of their global positioning system (GPS). The road eventually came to a dead end by Bautista Auto, a Tyler business owned by Appellant and his wife, Corina. As they turned the truck around to exit, they saw someone with an AK-47 style rifle inside the structure at Bautista Auto. The individual fired multiple rounds at them as they exited toward Highway 271.

Tyler Police Officer Riggle ¹ responded to the scene at Bautista Auto but found no one present. However, he saw a Ford Explorer with bullet holes and videotaped it before leaving. When Riggle returned twenty-five minutes later, the Explorer was gone. Smith County Sheriff's deputies arrived shortly thereafter, followed closely by Corina.

When the deputies questioned Corina, she made several contradictory statements. Initially, she told them that the Explorer was never there. Later, after viewing Riggle's video recording, she claimed that someone shot at her family. At another point in the questioning, Corina said that she was inside when she heard gunfire “down the road.” When the deputies asked Corina about the business's surveillance system, she claimed that it did not work. However, the deputies noticed that a computer was attached to the system and functioning. Corina then claimed that she lost the key to the computer's location. Finally, when Smith County Sheriff's Detective Theresa Smith asked Corina whether they kept any firearms at the business, she initially stated that they did not. Later, she admitted that Appellant kept multiple firearms in a small apartment on the premises.

Two deputies went to Appellant's residence and found the Explorer parked in front. They saw “a male” inside the residence and knocked on the door. Two children answered and claimed that no adult was home. Moments later, Appellant approached the deputies from behind. He was reticent to provide many details about the events that night but said that he and his family spent the day at the lake and stopped at Bautista Auto afterward to drop off their jet skis. According to Appellant, while they were at Bautista Auto, a truck almost hit his ten-year-old son. Appellant grabbed his son, took him inside, and stayed there with him. He did not fire a weapon and did not know when the shots were fired.

Like his father, Appellant's son was reluctant to share many details. He made statements corroborating Appellant's claims that a truck almost hit him and Appellant took him inside. However, their stories diverged at that point. According to Appellant's son, Appellant went back outside. Appellant's son then heard gunshots.

Eventually, pursuant to a search warrant, the police obtained the surveillance footage of the incident. The footage confirms that Appellant and his son were standing by a Chevrolet pickup truck parked on a road next to the shop building when another pickup truck turned onto the road. However, the footage refutes any claim that the truck almost hit the boy. Appellant and his son casually leave the road, and several seconds elapse before the truck reaches their previous location on the road. At that point, Appellant retrieves a rifle from his truck. While the truck turns around at the dead end, Appellant approaches and then fires multiple rounds at the truck as it proceeds toward Highway 271. He momentarily ceases fire, walks and briefly runs after the truck, and fires several more rounds toward the busy highway. Seconds later, Appellant, Corina, and their three children appear to search the area for casings.

Corina's sister and brother-in-law testified at the hearing on Appellant's behalf. Appellant asked the trial court to reduce the total bail amount to no more than $500,000 and indicated that he would comply with bond conditions confining him to his home and place of business and requiring GPS monitoring of his whereabouts. The State argued against a reduction. The court denied the application. This appeal followed.

Bond Reduction Denial

In Appellant's sole issue, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for a bond reduction.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

“Bail” is the security given by the accused that he will appear and answer before the proper court the accusation brought against him and includes a bail bond or personal bond. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.01 (West 2015). The primary purpose in setting bail is to secure the defendant's presence at trial. Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The federal constitution and our state constitution and laws prohibit “excessive” bail. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I § 13; Tex. Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.09 (West 2005). “The amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court, judge, magistrate or officer taking the bail[.]” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15 (West Supp. 2021). The exercise of this discretion is subject to the following rules:

1. Bail and any conditions of bail shall be sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be used to make bail an instrument of oppression.

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which the offense was committed are to be considered, including whether the offense:

(A) is an offense involving violence as defined by Article 17.03; or

(B) involves violence directed against a peace officer.

4. The ability to make bail shall be considered, and proof may be taken on this point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense, law enforcement, and the community shall be considered.

6. The criminal history record information for the defendant, including information obtained through the statewide telecommunications system maintained by the Department of Public Safety and through the public safety report system developed under Article 17.021, shall be considered, including any acts of family violence, other pending criminal charges, and any instances in which the defendant failed to appear in court following release on bail.

7. The citizenship status of the defendant shall be considered.

Id.; Golden v. State, 288 S.W.3d 516, 518 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd). In determining the amount of a defendant's bail, the following factors should also be considered: (1) work record, (2) family and community ties, (3) length of residency, (4) conformity with conditions of previous bonds, and (5) existence of outstanding bonds. See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Smith v. State, 829 S.W.2d 885, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). Although the accused's ability to make bail is a factor to consider, that factor alone does not control the amount of bail, even if the accused is indigent. Ex parte Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). The primary considerations when assessing the reasonableness of bail are the punishments that can be imposed and the nature of the offenses. 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.).

Bail settings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Rubac, 611 S.W.2d at 849-50. The trial court is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Ex parte Mowbray, 943 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Ex parte Gomez, 624 S.W.3d 573, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). We will not disturb the trial court's decision if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref'd). The burden is on the defendant to show that the amount of bail is excessive. Charlesworth, 600 S.W.2d at 317.

Nature of Offense and Potential Punishment

When determining reasonable bail, it is appropriate to consider whether the alleged offense involves violence. Ex parte Nimnicht, 467 S.W.3d 64, 67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.). Appellant is accused of firing an AK-47 style rifle over a dozen times, in the direction of a busy highway, at a group of nineteen-to twenty-year-old men who mistakenly turned onto a road next to his shop, killing one of them, and enlisting his wife and children to help him hide evidence of his actions. Based on Appellant's alleged actions, he is charged with five felony offenses, three of which involve violence as defined by Article 17.03. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.03 (b-3)(2)(A), (K) (West Supp. 2021) (murder and aggravated assault). If convicted, he faces the possibility of severe consequences, including life in prison. Appellant is charged with (1) murder, a first-degree felony carrying a potential sentence of five years to life, (2) two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, each a second-degree felony carrying a potential sentence of two to twenty years, (3) deadly conduct, a third-degree felony carrying a potential sentence of two to ten years, and (4) evidence tampering, a third-degree felony carrying a potential sentence of two to ten years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (West 2019); 12.33(a) (West 2019); 12.34(a) (West 2019); 19.02(c) (West Supp. 2024); 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2024); 22.05(b), (e) (West 2019); 37.09(c) (West Supp. 2024).

Safety of Community

The trial court expressed concern about the risk Appellant poses to the community and noted the difficulty of crafting a condition to protect the public given the facts of this case. Several factors justify the court's concern. First, Appellant allegedly targeted strangers who simply turned onto a public—or at least seemingly public—road ² for deadly violence and endangered the lives and safety of the motorists traveling on Highway 271. The random, violent, and senseless nature of these offenses raises a concern for the future safety of the community. See Ex parte Gonzalez, 383 S.W.3d 160, 165 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd) (inexplicable and brutal nature of offense suggested danger to community).

Second, the evidence suggests that Appellant might be involved in ongoing criminal activity. While searching Appellant's workplace and residence, the police found around a dozen firearms, copious extra magazines and ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and a large sum of cash stashed in a box. The trial court, while acknowledging the general lawfulness of possessing cash and firearms, found that the presence of these items, when combined with Appellant's “shoot-on-sight behavior,” raises a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in, or expected to engage in, criminal activity. We agree. Additionally, Corina was on felony community supervision in 2022. The evidence of Appellant's close connection to a convicted felon and possible involvement in ongoing criminal activity heightens the community safety concern. See Ex parte Chavfull, 945 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (appellant's criminal associations suggested danger to community).

Two final factors suggest that Appellant poses a risk to members of the community. First, he allegedly committed these violent, erratic, and deadly acts in the presence of his young children and involved them in the coverup, raising a concern for their wellbeing. Finally, at the hearing, Appellant indicated that when released he intends to return to work at Bautista Auto, where the alleged offenses occurred.

Financial Resources and Ability to Make Bail

Ana Lyeli Valle, Corina's sister, testified that Appellant makes his living as the owner and operator of a tire shop and car lot. The business continues to operate while Appellant is in jail,³ but the tire shop is temporarily closed. Based on the business's cash receipts from the past several years, Valle estimated the car payment income at around $25,000 per month. However, some customers stopped making payments after Appellant's arrest. As collateral for the bond, Appellant and Corina could use their real property, worth just under $200,000, and family members could provide about $40,000 in cash. On cross-examination, Valle said she is “sure” that Appellant and Corina have a bank account but has no knowledge of its value. She acknowledged that the police found approximately $100,000 in cash at their place of business.

Maugno Mora, Appellant's brother-in-law and a real estate agent, testified that he “looked into all of the resources that [Appellant] has available to him” and “know[s] quite a bit of his finances because [the family] has been trying to help.” Mora said that Appellant owns real property worth $200,000 to $295,000, owns no stocks or bonds of which Mora is aware, and has no other “expensive assets, such as expensive jewelry or property, other than ․ his car inventory.” According to Mora, Appellant's family members could provide $30,000 to $40,000 in cash for the bond.

Valle testified that the family contacted several bonding companies, half of which could not post the bond for insurance reasons, and the least expensive of which required almost $500,000 immediately and another $500,000 in thirty days, as well as twelve cosigners. According to Valle, the family could not secure the bond. Neither Appellant nor Corina testified, and no other evidence of their finances was produced.

Citizenship Status and Flight Risk

Detective Smith testified that Appellant is not a United States citizen but a Mexican national, and his parents reside in Mexico. According to Valle, Appellant is a legal permanent resident of the United States. Court records indicate that while Corina was on felony community supervision in 2022, she requested permission to travel to Mexico and stay with her in-laws for ten days to procure dental treatment, suggesting that Appellant and Corina have strong ties to Mexico and Appellant's family. After Appellant's arrest, the police received anonymous tips that he and Corina might flee to Mexico. These facts raise a strong concern that Appellant might flee upon release from jail. See Gonzalez, 383 S.W.3d at 166 (applicant's mother's ownership of house in Mexico was significant factor in upholding $1,500,000 bail in capital murder case).

Other evidence shows Appellant's reluctance to take responsibility for his actions, suggesting a heightened risk that he would fail to appear and face the charges against him. When the deputies arrived at his residence, they saw “a male” inside, but children answered the door and said that no adults were present. After Appellant decided to make his presence known, he told the deputies a fabricated story that a truck almost hit his ten-year-old son and he was inside when the shots were fired. His son offered the same story about the truck, suggesting that Appellant coached him to lie to the police.

Finally, the evidence indicates that Corina is willing to subvert law enforcement efforts in order to help Appellant avoid responsibility. First, the evidence indicates that she aided in the coverup of Appellant's actions by searching the ground for casings. Second, she lied to the deputies about the Explorer's presence at the scene. Third, she gave conflicting stories about the gunfire. Fourth, in an apparent attempt to prevent the police from obtaining the surveillance footage, Corina lied first by claiming the system was not functional, and later, after the deputies exposed her lie, by claiming that she lost the access key. Finally, she lied about the presence of firearms on the premises. These facts strongly suggest that Corina would assist Appellant in fleeing if he chose to do so.

Rubac Factors

Valle testified that Appellant has lived in the United States for at least seventeen years and has no prior criminal record. Corina is a U.S. citizen and was born and raised in Tyler. Appellant and Corina have three children, ages seventeen, fourteen, and ten. They are currently in Valle's custody with CPS supervision. Valle avowed that the family would ensure Appellant's compliance with any bond conditions, including a curfew, travel restrictions, and GPS monitoring. According to Valle, roughly one thousand members of the community wrote letters to the family in support of Appellant.

On cross-examination, Valle claimed little knowledge of Appellant's ties to Mexico. However, she acknowledged that his parents live there and he likely visits them regularly.

Analysis

Appellant argues that his bail amount is oppressive. We disagree. A bail amount is oppressive when it is set based on the assumption that the accused cannot afford bail in that amount and for the express purpose of forcing the accused to remain incarcerated. Ex parte Nimnicht, 467 S.W.3d at 70. Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court assumed Appellant cannot afford his current bail amount. To the contrary, Appellant failed to provide the evidence necessary to determine how much bail he can afford. The evidence shows that Appellant and Corina own real property worth $200,000 to $295,000, own a tire shop and car lot, typically receive about $25,000 per month in car payments alone, almost certainly have a bank account, and possess at least three personal vehicles,⁴ multiple jet skis, numerous firearms, and approximately $100,000 in cash. However, regarding the values of these items, Appellant chose to provide the court with evidence of only the real property value and the car payment income. The court was left with no evidence of the values of Appellant's vehicle inventory, business equipment, personal vehicles, jet skis, firearms, or bank account to use in determining the amount of bail he could afford. Based on the record here, we cannot conclude that the trial court used its power to make bail an instrument of oppression. See id.; see also Ex parte Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d 220, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (trial court could have concluded $200,000 bail in each of two online impersonation cases was reasonable where appellant offered scant evidence of his assets and finances); Milner v. State, 263 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (to show inability to make bail, defendant generally must show his and his family's funds are exhausted).

Appellant further complains that no precedent supports his bail amount and cites an opinion of this Court in which we stated that “[b]ail amounts in excess of seven figures are almost never required, even in capital cases.” See Ex parte Conklin, Nos. 12-22-00209-CR, 12-22-00210-CR, 2022 WL 16568281, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 31, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The trial court acknowledged the existence of statements like these in the case law, but it highlighted the use of the word “almost” and further observed “the reality of the world we live in, where people have access to resources and money that courts in the past really didn't fathom.” We agree with the court's assessments that generalizations like the statement in Conklin do not purport to limit bail to a particular amount in every case and, even as generalizations, become less useful with time because they fail to account for changes in the value and accessibility of money. See Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d at 233 (changing value of money reduces utility of dollar-to-dollar comparisons to bail amounts in prior cases). Rather, we consider the appropriateness of a bail amount “on a case-by-case basis, weighing factors unique to each defendant and each offense.” See Ex parte Hartsfield, No. 01-23-00824-CR, 2024 WL 3974188, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Ex parte Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d 722, 730 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2018, no pet.)).

Factors exist in this case weighing both for and against a bail reduction. Appellant emphasizes his work record, ties to Smith County, lengthy residence in the United States, and lack of criminal history. These factors weigh in favor of a reduction. Yet other factors present here weigh against a reduction. These include the nature of the offenses, potential punishment, community safety concerns, and flight risk.

Although Appellant's bail amount is high, the factors supporting the amount are compelling. After considering all the relevant factors, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by denying Appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus and continuing his bail amount of $4,700,000. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.15; Smith, 829 S.W.2d at 887. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's sole issue.

Disposition

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   Officer Riggle's first name is absent from the record.

2.   The record is unclear as to whether the road is public or private. Smith County Sheriff's Detective Theresa Smith testified that it is called “Old Gladewater” and marked by a road sign. Although it is marked as having no outlet, some official records indicate that it connects Highway 271 and County Road 376.

3.   According to Valle, Corina is running the business with assistance from her extended family.

4.   The record tends to show that Appellant and Corina own at least these three personal vehicles: (1) the Cadillac automobile in which Corina arrived at Bautista Auto, (2) the Explorer seen at Bautista Auto and later at Appellant's residence, and (3) the Chevrolet pickup truck from which Appellant is seen retrieving a rifle in the surveillance footage.

Brian Hoyle, Justice