Wilbert, Corey

8/20/26

PD-0147-26

  1. "Whether the court of appeals erred by rejecting Wilbert’s contention that the State had forfeited appellate review under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.01(a)(7)(A)(i) by failing to apprise the trial court of its argument that the bond was insufficient." 
  2. "Whether, in bail appeals under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.01 (f-1)(1) and Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.8(h)(1) – which require “a de novo review of all issues presented” – “all issues” includes factual determinations of the trial court as well as questions of law.  Thus, whether the court of appeals erred by failing to defer to the trial court’s factual determinations, opting instead to make de novo factual determinations from a cold record."

Wilbert’s bond for felony murder was originally set at $250,000. He asked for a reduction. At the hearing, evidence showed Wilbert arranged for others to sell the decedent marijuana and was 150 miles away in Arlington when the deal and shooting occurred. He had not directed the sellers to rob the decedent or carry firearms. His mother testified she had been unable to raise the amount needed for a $250,000 bond. The trial court reduced the amount to $70,000 and conditions, including an ankle monitor.

The State appealed under the new statute for appeals for insufficient bonds on certain offenses. Wilbert argued that the State forfeited its complaint by not complaining in the trial court that the bond was insufficient. In a very brief opinion, the court of appeals recited the new statute’s requirement that it should “conduct a de novo review of all issues presented.” After indicating it had “independently review[ed]” the record, briefs, and Art. 17.15 factors, it vacated the $70,000 bond and required reinstatement of the original amount.

Wilbert contends the court of appeals erred in not requiring the State to preserve error. He argues that a “de novo review” standard generally only applies to questions of law and that the same should apply in this context. Because the State didn’t ask for fact findings, the court of appeals should have deferred to the trial court’s implicit resolution of fact questions regarding the Art. 17.15 factors.