Ex parte Williams

Ex parte Antione Latrell Williams

NO. 03-20-00457-CR

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

April 23, 2021

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 78049, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Under two separate indictments, Antione Latrell Williams was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual assault involving two children. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021. Williams filed an application for writ of habeas corpus asking the trial court either to release him on a personal recognizance bond or reduce the amount of his bail. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the writ application in part by reducing the amount of bail in both cases but denied Williams's request to be released on a personal recognizance bond. Williams appeals the trial court's order and argues that the trial court erred by failing to further lower his bail or release him on a personal recognizance bond. We will affirm the trial court's order.

BACKGROUND

In 2017, Williams was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was subsequently sent to jail pending trial. In 2020, Williams filed an application for writ of habeas corpus generally asserting that the $200,000 bail set in the case was excessive and violated several constitutional provisions and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Alternatively, Williams argued that his continued detention in jail during the COVID-19 pandemic violates his due-process rights. After Williams filed his writ application, he was charged with another count of aggravated sexual assault occurring approximately ten years earlier and involving a different child. When he became aware of the new charge, Williams filed an amended writ application asserting that the $200,000 bail set in the new case was also excessive and repeated his general arguments from the first writ application.

During an evidentiary hearing, Williams asserted that the pandemic must change the way that trial courts consider the factors involved in setting the amount of bail, that there are due-process issues arising from his continued confinement, that several people with COVID-19 are currently detained at the jail, and that the jail does not have adequate filtration or ventilation. Further, Williams argued that he would live with his mother if he were released, that an ankle monitor could be used to track his movements, and that his mother and aunt agreed to chaperone him and provide continuous monitoring.

At the hearing, the State called four witnesses. First, Esteban Ramirez testified that he worked for the Sheriff's Department and helped establish the COVID-19 protocols used by the county jails. In particular, Ramirez related that the county contracted with Wellpath to provide medical services to the jails, that Wellpath provides doctors and nurses to assist those at the jails, that Wellpath screens individuals transported to the jails by asking them about their potential exposure to the coronavirus and checking to see if they are experiencing any symptoms associated with COVID-19, that the nurses and doctors working for Wellpath decide who to test for COVID-19, and that individuals who are either exposed to the coronavirus or experiencing symptoms associated with COVID-19 are transferred to a hospital for testing or treatment.

In addition, Ramirez explained that some of the jails have a few negative pressure units designed to house individuals who have infectious diseases and that individuals who test positive for COVID-19 are sent to those units. Although Ramirez admitted that there are not enough of the special units to accommodate everyone who is infected, he also stated that if someone has a potential exposure, the cell block where the individual resides is turned into a quarantine area. Further, Ramirez related that medical staff decide who to quarantine, and individuals who develop COVID-19 are isolated in a quarantine area until they are asymptomatic for seven days and have two negative test results.. Additionally, Ramirez explained that the recreation areas are disinfected between uses and that there is a policy for moving detainees in a manner that minimizes the potential for spreading the virus.

Regarding efforts to prevent employees from spreading the virus, Ramirez testified that employees have their temperatures taken before work; are given masks, gloves and hand sanitizers; and are instructed to wear masks and gloves while around the detainees. Moreover, Ramirez stated that the jails recently passed an inspection addressing compliance with COVID-19 safety protocols. Additionally, Ramirez explained that detainees are issued masks and hand sanitizer and that the cells have disinfectant; however, he admitted that the jails cannot force all detainees to wear masks, keep six feet apart, or wash their hands. Although Ramirez admitted that a few of the detainees and staff have tested positive, he also testified that none of the areas where Williams has been detained have been under quarantine, that he is currently detained in the central jail, and that the central jail has never had a positive result.

Next, the State called the mother of the victim of the offense alleged in the 2017 indictment. In her testimony, the mother explained that her son J.C. was eight years old at the time of the alleged sexual assaults, that J.C. now has behavioral issues and night terrors becauseof the abuse, that J.C. would be traumatized if Williams were released, and that Williams could hurt other children if he were released. Although the mother explained that she would not necessarily agree with a decision to release Williams, she stated that she would be open to the idea if he were monitored and had no access to children.

Following this testimony, the State called the mother of the victim of the older offenses alleged in the 2020 indictment. In her testimony, the mother explained that she allowed Williams to move in with her and her children to help him out. The mother testified that Williams sexually assaulted her then six-year-old daughter, that her oldest son also made an allegation against Williams, that she reported the allegations to the police, and that the case was not prosecuted at that time. Further, the mother related that Williams has not had any contact with her family since she reported him to the police but that she was concerned that he could hurt another child if he were released.

Finally, the State called Detective Amanda Holtzclaw. In her testimony, Detective Holtzclaw stated that as part of her investigation of the allegations involving J.C., she learned that there were two cases involving Williams from 2007 and 2011 and that she was currently investigating Williams in another sexual abuse case with an outcry from 2019 involving allegations similar to those pertaining to J.C. In addition, Detective Holtzclaw explained that Williams admitted to her that he was a football coach and offered to babysit the children of his friends and that he met some of the alleged victims through those activities. Detective Holtzclaw also testified that she is concerned that Williams will hurt more children if he is let out.

After the witnesses finished testifying, Williams argued to the trial court that he was entitled to the presumption of innocence and that he deserves bail after having been jailedfor an extended period of time. Further, Williams requested that he be released and allowed to live at his mother's apartment and that the State use an ankle monitor to track his movements. In response, the State argued that the jails are taking appropriate safety precautions to minimize the spread of the coronavirus, that Williams has not been exposed to the coronavirus, and that no particularized showing has been made that the coronavirus endangers his health. Additionally, the State argued that opening the door for Williams under these circumstances would open the door to all jail detainees. Finally, the State emphasized that there are multiple victims, that Williams has shown a pattern of gaining access to children, and that the danger to the community outweighs any risk posed by the coronavirus.

At the end of the hearing, the trial court agreed to reduce the amount of bail in both cases but also imposed conditions if Williams paid the bail. In its order, the trial court reduced the amount of bail for the offense alleged in the 2017 indictment to $40,000 and the amount of bail for the offenses alleged in the 2020 indictment to $20,000. In addition, the trial court imposed the following bond conditions if he made bail: Williams will have no contact with anyone under the age of seventeen years old, must live with his mother, must wear a global positioning system device, and be continuously supervised by his mother or his aunt.

In its order, the trial court also noted that Williams asked to be released on a personal recognizance bond but explained that the Governor's Executive Order GA-13 issued in response to the pandemic prohibits jail detainees from being released on personal recognizance bonds if they have been charged with crimes of violence. Accordingly, the trial court denied Williams's request that he be released on a personal recognizance bond.

Williams appeals the order by the trial court.

DISCUSSION

In one issue on appeal, Williams presents several sets of arguments asserting that the trial court erred by failing to sufficiently lower the amount of bail and by failing to release him on a personal recognizance bond.¹

Amount of Bail

In his first set of arguments, Williams asserts that although the trial court reduced the amount of bail, the reduced amount was still excessive under the circumstances.

A bail determination is committed to the sound discretion of a trial court, but the exercise of that discretion is guided by statutory and constitutional directives. See Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566, 567-68 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref'd). Trial courts must balance...