Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree indecency. Jury sentenced him to maximum 20 years. Conviction was affirmed, but sentence overturned. New sentencing trial ordered. Is defendant now entitled to bail? The best authority I've found is Watkins v. State, 883 S.W.2d 377, from Tyler C.A. That opinion says defendant has no right to bail, but it's trial court's discretion.

My defendant was granted bail this morning, and I'd like to get it yanked if I can. I think I'm behind the 8-ball on this one now, so I'd appreciate any ideas.

Thanks.

Patrick,

Look at Article 44.04 (b) CCP.

The defendant may not be released on bail ...
... where the defendant has been convicted of an offense under 42.12 3(g).

In 42.12 3 (g) indecency by contact is listed.

May not be perfect argument but might help.

Why in the world would a judge grant bail to a convicted 3g offender?

44.04(b) was my argument at the hearing.

As for why the judge would grant it, I'd better keep my mouth shut.

I'm with John. The one time I decided not to request immediate remand for a 3g conviction, I ended up having to extradite from Florida and do the punishment hearing about a year after the guilty verdict. What incentive does a person guaranteed a trip to the penitentiary have to show back up for sentencing?

Under the new sex offender laws in HB 8, certain sex offenders wouldn't even be eligible for probation -- from a judge OR jury. That guarantees the defendant is getting a prison sentence, making bond even more pointless.

So, in this limbo state, does the defendant have to register as a sex offender? I think he does, because the pendency of an appeal has no effect on a "reportable conviction". And this guy has been convicted - and affirmed - but not sentenced. Competing thoughts?