John Bradford Crow v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-00-0144-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 7, 2001
______________________________
JOHN BRADFORD CROW, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 735352; HONORABLE LARRY FULLER, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR BOND FOLLOWING REVERSAL
By opinion dated August 7, 2001, this Court reversed appellant’s conviction for
murder and remanded the cause for new trial. Pending before this Court is appellant’s
motion for bond following reversal pursuant to article 44.04(h) of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Annotated (Vernon Supp. 2001). Appellant certifies that the State
opposes the motion and has informed appellant’s counsel that instead of filing a motion
for rehearing, the State intends to proceed with its petition for discretionary review. For the
reasons expressed herein, appellant’s motion is overruled without prejudice to the filing of
a revised or amended motion.
By his motion, appellant requests that this Court set a reasonable bond in the
amount of no more than $20,000, which he contends is a reasonable amount. According
to the clerk’s record, on January 10, 2000, appellant certified by his pauper’s oath on
appeal that he was too poor to employ counsel and was without funds, property, or income
to pay for a record of the evidence. However, in his motion, appellant does not discuss
his ability to make bail at this time. Further, article 44.04(h) does not furnish any specific
guidance as to the criteria or factors which we should consider in making reasonable bail
determinations following the reversal of a conviction. However, in Aviles v. State, 23
S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d), the court suggested that
the factors set out in article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were relevant
to setting bond under article 44.04(h). See also Ex Parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50
(Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s motion without
prejudice to presentation of a revised or amended motion.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
