EX PARTE FROM A DISTRICT COURT JOHN STEPHEN AUER

 
COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-89-00605-CR
EX PARTE FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
 
JOHN STEPHEN AUEROF COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ENOCH AND JUSTICES BAKER AND WHITTINGTON
OPINION PER CURIAM
JUNE 28, 1989
        John Stephen Auer appeals from the trial court's order setting his appeal bond at $75,000 and contends that the amount is excessive. We disagree and affirm the trial court's order.
        Applicant was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child and assessed an eight year sentence. Bond was originally set at $20,000, then raised to $75,000. Applicant contends that the trial court's action was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to consider the factors of his situation and there was no evidence that the $20,000 bond was insufficient.
        Article 17.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
    The amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court judge, magistrate or officer taking the bail; they are to be governed in the exercise of this discretion by the Constitution and by the following rules:
 
        1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.
 
        2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.
 
        3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.
 
        4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.
 
        5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense may be considered.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (Vernon Supp. 1989). The setting of bail is within the discretion of the trial court; there is no precise standard for reviewing a bail bond setting. Ex parte Pemberton, 577 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the bail set is excessive. Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The applicant must also show that he has attempted to, but cannot, make the bond set. Ex parte Sellers, 516 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
        The record reflects that applicant failed to sustain his initial burden of showing that he had attempted to, but was unable to, make his bond. There is no evidence in the record of an attempt to make the $75,000 bond. In addition, the record reflects that applicant made the $20,000 bond, that he had started a job, and that he was planning to buy a house. This is insufficient to carry his burden. Ex parte Henton, 468 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). We overrule applicant's points of error and affirm the trial court's order.
                                                  PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
 
89-00605.F
 
 
File Date[09-06-89]
File Name[890605F]