Ex Parte: Tellamiskus Bryant v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00118-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 475TH
EX PARTE:
§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
TELLAMISKUS BRYANT
§ SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tellamiskus Bryant appeals the denial of her application for a writ of habeas corpus
following revocation of her bonds for four felony charges for child abandonment/endangerment
with intent to return. In a single issue, Appellant contends the trial court denied her due process
when it revoked her bonds without a hearing. We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was arrested on January 23, 2023, and is currently charged with four cases of
child abandonment/endangerment with intent to return. She has not been indicted. Appellant’s
bonds were initially set at $30,000 for each case. Appellant filed a motion to reduce the bonds,
and after a hearing, the trial court reduced them to $15,000 for each case. Appellant posted
surety bonds and was released on February 10 with conditions.
On April 21, the trial court signed a bond violation report indicating that Appellant tested
positive for marijuana at three different probation office visits in violation of her bond
conditions. On each report, the trial court checked the following boxes: “The Court, having
considered the above Violation Report, hereby orders an Alias Capias Arrest Warrant be issued
in this cause, as requested,” and “New bond set at $30,000 SAME conditions.” Appellant was
arrested on capias warrants on April 25.
Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus on April 26. In her application,
Appellant alleged that the increased bond amounts were excessive, oppressive, and beyond her
financial means. She further requested the trial court conduct a hearing and reduce the bond to a
“reasonable amount.” The trial court conducted a hearing on May 5 and denied the application.
This appeal followed.

BOND REVOCATION
In her sole issue, Appellant argues the trial court violated her right to due process by
“revoking” her bond without notice or a hearing.
The issue before us though, is not whether the trial court erred when it initially increased
her bond, but whether the trial court erred when it denied her application for writ of habeas
corpus. But the existence of any error in the first instance does not resolve the issue of any error
in the appeal before us today. See Ex parte Werne, 118 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Ex parte Ware, No. 09-21-00227-CR, 2021 WL 5911681, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 15, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
In Werne, while the court of appeals left the possibility open that error in a bond
proceeding could be “so great as to fatally corrupt a later proceeding[,]” such is not the case here.
Werne, 118 S.W.3d at 837. Although the trial court in Werne was held to have erred in its first
habeas proceeding, the error was rectified when the relator was afforded a later proceeding, even
if that proceeding resulted in six weeks of “unnecessary” incarceration. See id. Our sister court
of appeals concluded that the error did not contaminate the later proceeding, which followed
proper procedures. Id. at 837-38. Similarly, in Ware, the appellant claimed he was denied due
process when his bond was revoked without a hearing. The court of appeals determined that
despite any allegation of trial court error in the initial revocation of his pretrial bond and the trial
court’s decision to deny him further bond, Ware was ultimately afforded due process in the form
of the hearing on his application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ware, 2021 WL 5911681, at *2;
see also Ex parte Nelson, 546 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.)
(noting that a defendant cannot use a subsequent habeas proceeding to challenge issues in a prior
habeas proceeding).
In this case, Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus following the
increase in her bond amount. The trial court conducted a hearing on the application at which
Appellant argued the trial court impermissibly increased her bond amount and asked to be

2
released from custody. 1 On appeal, Appellant does not argue the bond amounts are excessive.
She only attacks the failure to conduct a hearing before issuing an arrest capias and the
corresponding alleged due process violations. Appellant’s issue is, therefore, moot as she was
afforded due process when the trial court held an evidentiary hearing regarding her application
for writ of habeas corpus. See Ware, 2021 WL 5911681, at *2. We overrule Appellant’s sole
issue.

DISPOSITION
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s order.
GREG NEELEY
Justice
Opinion delivered September 6, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1
Appellant argued in the trial court, and mentions briefly on appeal, that her case is analogous to In re
Ramos, No. 13-22-00497-CR, 2023 WL 185106 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 13, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). However, that case dealt with a bond revocation under Article 17.40 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure and concerned bond conditions to protect the safety of the victim. Article 17.40 is not
applicable in this case.

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 6, 2023

NO. 12-23-00118-CR

EX PARTE: TELLAMISKUS BRYANT

Appeal from the 475th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 23-0985-H)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
trial court’s order.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the order of
the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
Greg Neeley, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.