Saturday, May 1, 2021

Judge Ramona Franklin and the 338th Star Chamber

 It was twenty-two years ago this evening that I learned (through the world's slowest dial-up internet connection) that I had passed the Bar Exam.  In some ways, it doesn't seem that long ago.  In others, it seems far longer than it actually was.  I've been around since the time of Johnny Holmes.  I've handled cases in multiple counties across Texas, and I've probably appeared in front of over one hundred judges.

I've appeared in front of good judges and bad, smart judges and not-so-smart judges, funny judges and humorless judges, kind judges and downright mean judges, strict judges and informal judges, liberal judges and conservative judges, humble judges and the utmost arrogant of judges.  I've appeared before judges that I adored and judges that I despised (and always will.)

I've even appeared before a certifiably crazy judge a time or two.  Some of my wildest war stories come from my time as the Chief of County Court at Law # 5 when Judge Janice Law was on the Bench. (Sidenote:  do yourself a favor and read the article about Judge Law.  It is wildly entertaining.  And accurate.)

I've seen judges make rulings or implement policies that I thought were dead wrong -- sometimes infuriatingly so.  I've seen them bend over backward to interpret the law in a way that suited their agenda -- often cruelly so.  

But I can honestly say that I've never seen a judge quite like Judge Ramona Franklin of the 338th District Court of Harris County, Texas.


I first met now-Judge Franklin when she and I both worked at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  I had a three-year headstart on her at the Office, and we never worked together in the same court.  I knew her to say "hello" but she didn't seem to socialize that much.  She was a prosecutor for a few years, but if I recall correctly, she had left the Office before I did.  I don't recall hearing anything negative in particular about her during her tenure.

She became a defense attorney before I did, and that job can be rather nomadic by nature.  That's not unusual. Unless you represent co-defendants on a case, there isn't a lot of teamwork on this side of the law.  I never heard anything negative about her as a defense attorney, either.

I've only personally appeared before her once or twice since she was elected to the 338th bench in 2016.  Those times were brief but pleasant.  She was friendly and nothing was out of the ordinary.  

I bring all of this up because I want to stress that I have had no negative interactions with Judge Franklin since I've known her.  Although she and I are not friends, we certainly are not enemies, and nothing that I'm about to write is born out of a personal issue that I have with her.  I've criticized many a person on this blog over the past thirteen years and I feel (at least, I hope) that I've always been transparent when those criticisms arose from a personal issue.

This isn't one of those situations.  I want you to know that.

It goes without saying that the standard operating procedures for courtrooms around the country were thrown out the window in 2020 as the Covid-19 crisis took effect.  Things that we took for granted -- like walking into a courtroom to observe the proceedings, for instance -- suddenly disappeared in favor of safety protocols designed to keep from further spreading the virus.  

Over the past year, the System has adapted as best it could.  Courts have waived appearances for defendants accused of crimes in the majority of cases and settings.  Attorneys have the option of using Zoom video conferences for making appearances.  Courtroom proceedings are viewable on publicly accessible channels on the Internet.  

In the beginning, attorneys were free to attend court in person if they wanted to risk their own possible exposure to the virus.  Some did.  Many didn't.  The majority of the judges worked to set bonds that defendants could make and subsequently waived the requirement of appearance for those defendants who weren't in custody.  Some were required to appear by Zoom.  Others did not have to appear at all as long as their attorney was there on the client's behalf (either personally or by Zoom).  Much to the dismay of many zealous Law & Order-types, the general theme was to get as many defendants with pending cases out of jail and out of the courthouse to prevent further spread of the virus.

Inexplicably, Judge Franklin continued to go in the opposite direction.  While her brethren and sistren in the judiciary were trying to find ways to lower bonds to reduce the jail population, Judge Franklin was looking for ways to get defendants who had already posted bond taken back into custody.  

In an August 28, 2020 article in the Houston Chronicle, reporters Samantha Ketterer and St. John Barned-Smith wrote of judicial complaints made against Judge Franklin for the practice, citing two specific incidents where defendants who had paid bonding companies a non-refundable fee to post their bonds had those bonds revoked by Franklin following one of her "bond reviews."  In these instances, the defendant was taken into custody, despite having made bond and appearing in court as required.  The bonding company got their money back, but the bonding company was under no obligation whatsoever to return the fee paid to it by the defendant.  No circumstances had changed since the initial bond had been set, other than Judge Franklin whimsically deciding it wasn't enough.

There's a really big problem with that, however.  

Judge Franklin wasn't following the Code of Criminal Procedure by raising and revoking those bonds.  A defendant is entitled to a hearing before that can happen, and they are entitled to advanced notice of that hearing.  An attorney knows that and would fight for that right.  Unfortunately, as noted in the article, Judge Franklin was revoking those bonds on at least some of those defendants without their attorneys being present.

From the article:
Franklin has said that she asks attorneys to stand in during those proceedings, the defense lawyers said, but no formal appointment or recording of those stand-in attorneys exists.

Apparently, Judge Franklin missed the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, which states that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."  Taking a person into custody on a bond revocation without the benefit of a hearing with notice is violating that person's right to Due Process.  A defendant probably doesn't know that off the top of his head though, does he?  Maybe that's the reason that the 6th Amendment has that guarantee of a lawyer that every American who has ever watched a police drama on television knows about.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Judge Franklin revoking and raising bonds on Defendants is the one-two punch of Constitutional violations.  Unfortunately, we are just getting started with the Star Chamber she is running in the 338th District Court.

Remember how I mentioned that courts in Harris County and around the state have live-streamed internet channels of daily proceedings?   Well, the 338th has the channel but made the notable decision not to turn it on.  Want to know what Judge Ramona Franklin is doing in her courtroom?  Is she following the Constitution of the United States and the laws and procedures of Texas?  Is she strong-arming defendants into pleading guilty?  Is she interrogating them without their lawyers present?  Is she having them arrested because she doesn't like their attitude?

Who knows?  She's turned her camera off.  We'll get back to that issue in a moment.

As reported in an article by Samantha Ketterer in the Houston Chronicle this week, the crisis in the 338th came to a head again on Thursday, April 29th.  I know that Samantha's article is behind a paywall, so if you don't have a Chronicle subscription, I'll tell you what happened.  I was tangentially involved due to my role as the current leader of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association's Strike Force.  For those of you who are not familiar, the Strike Force, in addition to having a very cool name (that I didn't select by the way, but I totally would have if I had been the first person to ever lead it), is a group of volunteers within HCCLA who respond when an attorney finds himself in jeopardy with a judge.

As reported in the Chronicle, the attorney in need of Strike Force assistance this week was Clay Conrad.  The judge he needed assistance with was Judge Ramona Franklin.

The preceding week, Conrad had a client charged with the State Jail Felony charge of Retail Theft.  For those of you who don't practice criminal law, a State Jail Felony is the lowest level of felony in the State of Texas.  It is punishable by a maximum of 2 years in State Jail.  His client also had no previous criminal history and was out on a $1500 bond.  The client was ordered to appear before Judge Franklin and Conrad was prepared to accompany his client to court.

Then a not-so-funny thing happened.

The 338th District Court staff told him that, per Judge Franklin's orders, he would not be allowed to enter the courtroom with his client.  Per Judge Franklin's Covid protocols, the defendant must be present, but the defense attorney was forbidden from entering.

Conrad was told that he could appear by Zoom, and that would satisfy the defendant's right to counsel.  Conrad told the court that was unacceptable and that he would need to have the ability to stand side-by-side with his client in open court like any good lawyer would.  An attorney watching a client appear before a judge while he or she observes through Zoom is the equivalent of having no attorney present at all.  The defendant can't ask a private question.  The attorney cannot give privileged advice without it being audible to the judge, the prosecutors, and the audience.  

Knowing Judge Franklin's proclivity toward having spontaneous "bond review" hearings, it was even more vital that Conrad stand side-by-side with his client in open court -- far more so than it would be in other courts that take Due Process more seriously.

Conrad and his client were put at the end of the line on cases called before the judge that day.  Ultimately, he was told that he could file a brief as to why he should be allowed in the courtroom with his client.  Judge Franklin informed him the brief couldn't be any longer than 4 pages.  He was told to return to court on April 29th.  He wrote his brief.  He came back on the 29th.  

The HCCLA Stike Force came with him.


Clay Conrad (right front) and the Strike Force


So did Samantha Ketterer, who had been made aware of what was happening.  Ketterer asked the court if she could enter the courtroom to observe the proceedings, and was denied entry by the bailiff, on orders of the judge.  Ketterer followed up by asking if she would be able to watch the live feed on the internet as was possible with all other courts.  As per usual, the live stream of the 338th was turned off so that the actions of the court were visible to no one other than those inside or the attorneys admitted for a Zoom hearing.

Conrad asked whether or not he would be allowed to enter with his client, and he was told that he would not.  He must attend by Zoom.  Conrad told them that he did not have the ability to Zoom with his phone and that he did not have a computer with him.  In the meantime, Strike Force ninja Kate Ferrell reached out to personnel she hoped might have some sway over Judge Franklin regarding that live feed.  Without going into the details of those conversations, the response was swift and urgent. Approximately an hour later, the feed to the 338th District Courtroom was suddenly active.

Once the feed was live, it was watched by criminal defense attorneys around the State.  Conrad's issues with Judge Franklin had also been conveyed to the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association, which was also monitoring the situation.

As she had the previous week, Judge Franklin called on Conrad's client dead last out of all the defendants on the docket that day.  At approximately 1:30 p.m. (docket had started at 10:30 for bond cases), Franklin relented and allowed Conrad to enter the courtroom with his client . . .

. . . where they immediately held a "bond review."  The State of Texas, by and through her Assistant District Attorney, moved to raise the bond on this dastardly first offender charged with a State Jail Felony to $3,000.  I don't know specifically which prosecutor it was, but, seriously???  A prosecutor, who clearly understood Judge Franklin's tendency to revoke and raise bonds for little to no reason, attempted to have her do just that because . . . he could?  

Conrad objected, citing no notice to the hearing and demanding that his client be afforded her Due Process rights.  Judge Franklin elected not to raise the bond, and after a needlessly painful struggle, Conrad's client was allowed to walk out of the courtroom with her attorney.

Another defendant who had appeared before Judge Franklin that morning had not been so fortunate.  

A 17-year-old defendant, whose mother had paid to have him bonded out, was also ordered to appear before the court that morning.  The mother had not hired an attorney for her son yet.  He was told to enter the courtroom.  The mother was told that she could not.  She sat outside the courtroom with no idea of what was happening with her child.  Sometime later, court personnel came out and told her that her son's bond had been reviewed, revoked, and raised and he had been taken into custody.  The money she had paid to a bonding company had been a waste.  

All of this is just an example of one day in the 338th District Court, Judge Ramona Franklin presiding.   There are many other stories out there.  Many of them have been reported to those who are tasked with monitoring the actions of judges.  As of this writing, no action has been taken.

I realize that, generally, those accused of crimes don't automatically garner a lot of sympathy, especially not in Texas.  Even if that's the case, we should all value the rules that guarantee a fair fight when one is accused of a crime.  Judge Franklin is effectively running a Star Chamber, shrouded in secrecy and devoid of any apparent feelings of obligation about honoring the law and procedure.  Something simply must be done and the powers that be need to stop their hesitancy in acting about it.  This is absolutely an emergency situation.

I know this post is already excruciatingly long, but sadly, there is a lot of content to cover, and there is one additional issue that needs to be addressed.

What in God's name is "progressive" District Attorney Kim Ogg doing by allowing and encouraging her prosecutors to participate in what is happening in the 338th?  Why on Earth is she participating in bond reviews with no notice and without hearings?  As noted in the Chronicle article from August, the appellate court ruled that Judge Franklin could not revoke and raise the bond in one of the cases cited.  That ruling is on hold because Ogg ordered her Office to take that issue up on appeal to a higher court.  In the meantime, prosecutors in the court continue to ask for higher bonds, sometimes apparently (as in Conrad's client's case), just for the hell of it.

Judge Ramona Franklin was re-elected without an opponent in 2020.  She is beginning her fifth month of a brand new, four-year term.

This should scare the hell out of you.  

In the meantime, just pray that you never find yourself accused of a crime before the 338th District Court, Honorable Ramona Franklin presiding.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

People are tired of bond reform. And they didn't get a vote on it. People are tired of rising crime rates. You can't be surprised when Judges start feeling the heat and facing the reality of being voted out of office if they don't get tough. I don't think anyone but defense attorneys care much about this issue. They can't do the time, they shouldn't do the crime...

Anonymous said...

Bonds are to secure the appearance of presumed-innocent defendants, not punish. I think people who don't understand the Constitution don't care much about this issue.

Anonymous said...

Bonds are not just to secure a defendants appearance in court, if that were the case then the code of criminal procedure 17.15 wouldn’t include factors to consider when setting a bond related to community and victim safety.

Also, 17.09 , section 3, allows a judge to raise a bond whenever they believe a bond is insufficient or for any other good cause. 17.09 also doesn’t require notice for a judge to do that or a hearing, it just says whenever a judge finds this.

I’m not saying Judge Franklin is correct, especially in this case. If it is a first offender SJ theft and there haven’t been any bond violations, then I think there is no reason to raise the bond. However, I think the real issue here as to why the mother of the 17 year old is having to post a new bond is that magistrates are giving PR bond to people and cases that shouldn’t get PR bonds as well as giving low surety bonds to dangerous criminals. I don’t know what the 17 year old was charged with, so I’ll just talk generally about what’s happening. On Agg Robs, habitual offenders, and other dangerously violent criminals that commit new offense while on bond, some magistrates are giving them very low surety bonds, like $10,000. Defendants families then post that bond paying the bondsman immediately, before the defendant can get to court and the district court judge can review it. So, once it gets to the district court judge, the district court judge has the predicament of leaving the bond where it is and risking community safety, or raising it to an appropriate amount and the defendants family being out the fee. Magistrates think they are helping the defendants by setting these crazy low bonds, but they are really setting defendant up to lose money by doing that.

Jagger said...

I hope that it doesn't come to you being wrongly charged with a crime to realize the logical disconnect between 1. Being "accused" of a crime; 2. "Doing" a crime; 3. Being "convicted" of a crime; and 4. "Doing time" for a crime.
Try not to go out of your way to be stupid.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 9:15 a.m.,
In regard to the 17-year-old, the problem is that the magistrate's level of bond may be the problem, or it may not be. We don't know because she shuts down the video feed and forbids access to the court. That's the huge problem here. She could be ruling with the wisdom of Solomon. However, it does appear pretty evident that she isn't following procedure. He's entitled to a hearing. He's entitled to notice of that hearing. He's entitled to an attorney. Even if raising the bond is ultimately the right thing to do, there is a right way to go about it.

Anon 12:54 a.m.,
You are probably correct that society doesn't care, but it should. Much like the Bible, people use the Consitution to emphasize those things that they agree with, while conveniently ignoring the parts that they don't. The presumption of innocence is there and it is very much there for a reason. Your post encourages wilful ignorance of the parts you disagree with.

Anonymous said...

You should reread 17.09 more carefully. There is a difference between "bail" and "bond."

The judge is permitted to find that a bond is insufficient - not that a bail amount is insufficient.

The judge can require a sufficient bond. However, 17.09 doesnt permit a judge to have a defendant rearrested because she didn't like the initially set bail amount.

Finally, it certainly can't be done without notice and a hearing.

Anonymous said...

I realize that bond reform is an economic windfall for defense attorneys, so you're all for it. But, please stop all the self-righteousness. My argument had nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. That is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. But the presumption of innocence does not mean everyone who gets arrested is allowed to go free. Each case is decided on its own merits and bond should be not be decided on the presumption of innocence alone, but also should consider the safety of the public. Ensuring the safety of the public is not to be confused with "punishment" of the criminals charged. Holy shit, you can't be that dense. It certainly looks like your using part of the Constitution that emphasizes those things you agree with while conveniently ignoring the parts he doesn't agree with.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 5:46,
Please explain to me how bond reform is an economic windfall for the defense bar. I must have missed the stockholder meeting when we did profit sharing on that one.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is real handy when it comes to protecting individuals from government abuses. You’re damn right I’m going to cite it in all of its glory. Not clear how that makes me sense.

Anonymous said...

Are defense attorneys not representing the SAME criminals over and over because they keep getting let out on bond and committing additional crimes? Instead of one and done, you guys get to keep representing the same criminal over and over. One $2500+ retainer vs. 5 $2500+ retainers = $$$$

And again, using the Constitution and Bill of Rights to emphasize only those issues you agree with. Pot, meet kettle.

Murray Newman said...

Ha. No. That’s not how it works. You have failed at Arm Chair Law Firm. And your comprehension of why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights is really a nice example of missing the forest for the trees.

Anonymous said...

Sheeiiittt...you're just pulling the scab back on the Court-Defendant-Bail-Bondsman money machine! Take a look at the whole Probation scam.

Anonymous said...

You are correct, I used the word “Bond” interchangeably with bail, the way it is usually done in the courthouse, whereas technically, the section refers to “Bail” which is defined in 17 as basically money given to get out of jail. Other than using the wrong term though, everything else is correct.

17.09 doesn’t require any notice or hearing, I’ve read it many times and the section doesn’t mention notice of a hearing. Maybe some other section requires it, like 17.091 that requires notice and a hearing prior to reduction of bail
on certain cases, but it’s not part of 17.09. Or maybe you believe the constitution requires it, and maybe you are correct, but I am not aware of any case that requires notice of a hearing prior to a judge finding bail to be insufficient or making a finding of any other good cause and raising bail.

As with everything in Law, we are all learning, so if I am incorrect, please point me to the correct statute or case, but it’s not in 17.09.

Murray, I agree that the main issue here is that she’s not kept her court open to the public. I’m not a big fan of streaming docket on the internet, but with Covid, we all need to adjust and the best way to limit the number people in the courtroom while keeping it open to the public (which I do think is important for all the reasons you discussed) is by streaming docket. I also agree that it’s difficult to be effective while representing a client on zoom in a hearing and think it’s probably unconstitutional to keep an Attorney physically from their client during a hearing.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying every time your client catches a new case because he's out on bond committing new crimes, you don't charge him extra for the new cases? You're offering an all-inclusive, one for Lifetime retainer, and you stop the hourly rate when the first case is adjudicated, and work all the other cases for free? Bullshit

And explain to me again why the issue of bond consideration should not include that matter of public safety. The Bill of Rights was put into place to protect ALL of us, not just criminals or alleged criminals

Anon @9:38 You are correct

Tom said...

For what it's worth, after I saw Murray's post I jumped to the 338th Zoom feed. It was black except for an order not to record it. It also seemed to indicate that plea hearings are all that is transmitted.
Twice while I was a Chronicle reporter in the 70s and 80s, the Chron filed mandamuses against local and well respected judges who closed their courtrooms. Both times the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled for the Chronicle. The court never got to the constitutional question. It just said that Article 1.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says all proceedings will be public and the legislature meant said and that "all" means "all."

Tom said...

For what it's worth, after I saw Murray's post I jumped to the 338th Zoom feed. It was black except for an order not to record it. It also seemed to indicate that plea hearings are all that is transmitted.
Twice while I was a Chronicle reporter in the 70s and 80s, the Chron filed mandamuses against local and well respected judges who closed their courtrooms. Both times the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled for the Chronicle. The court never got to the constitutional question. It just said that Article 1.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says all proceedings will be public and the legislature meant said and that "all" means "all."

Murray Newman said...

Anon 9:28,

Your theories are silly. No attorney wants his client to pick up new charges because it makes defending him far more difficult. You can keep coming up with your different scenarios that make sense to you if you want, but for those of us who ACTUALLY practice law, you seem very foolish.

Anonymous said...

They weren't scenarios, they were questions. And you declined to answer any of them for reasons that are all too clear

Murray Newman said...

That the questions were too stupid to answer?

Anonymous said...

Not surprising, liberals always revert to name-calling when they can't answer simple questions. However you need to justify it, go ahead. I found this site on Twitter. I see now that you have to advertise it there to try to drive traffic here. Can't say I blame everyone for staying away. If you have to be disingenuous about something as simple as defense attorneys making more money by this bond reform fiasco, we probably can't have an honest conversation anyway. Such a shame. Caio

Anonymous said...

Wait, what?

"No attorney wants his client to pick up new charges because it makes defending him far more difficult."

Previous and subsequent crimes committed by the same defendant are not even admissible unless it's a continuing course of action, at which time it would likely be charged together. Why on earth would it make defending him "far more difficult"? And deny it all you want, you're still charging your clients extra for every different case. Nevermind. I'm tired of the excuses. And that's a whopper. Gone.

Murray Newman said...

Aww. Sorry you got your feelings hurt. I didn't call you any names, but you seem to have thrown around a few. I'm sorry we didn't take your uninformed observations as solid gold, but I do appreciate the fact that you logged in twice after to midnight to send two separate farewell comments. So, "Caio" and "Gone" to you, as well.

Anonymous said...

Murray, you need to be commended for bringing up this topic. Every time this outrageous conduct occurs a complaint needs to be filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Also, a Writ needs to be filed in order to have a formal hearing on the matter of bail, and the judges actions. Judges like Franklin have no business being on the bench. They are a disgrace to the bench.

And, forget about Ogg doing anything. All she cares about is Ogg.

Anonymous said...

Setting aside the nonsense regarding defense attorney's profiting from bail reform, after all, contrary to the assertions of some, a super majority of people charged with crimes do not commit additional offenses while waiting for their cases to be heard, wasn't this judge involved in several scandals during her first term? One of them was a case where she lowered the bond on a human trafficker that caused an uproar, linked here:
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/judge-under-fire-for-allowing-convicted-felon-to-bond-out-of-jail-twice

Otherwise, many of those running the area's bail companies double dip by financing or owning such companies while representing clients as defense counsel. They've been none too silent about bail reform given it has greatly cut into their family businesses, generating all sorts of misleading statistics while trying to overturn the resulting settlement from the federal case. The presumption by the argumentative poster above that those in the defense side of the equation are making all kinds of extra money is another red herring along with all the other false claims stemming from some of the unconstitutional practices of using a rigid monetary system instead of what judges/magistrates were supposed to be doing for so many years.

Anonymous said...

Please consider provisions of Texas Constitution, Article 15, Section 6...

Anonymous said...

This is a classic case of a judge with Black Robe Disease. But what concerns me is that what she has done with bail and with trying to shut out the defense attorney from her courtroom and isolate a vulnerable defendant is a violation of state and federal law. Judges are not above the law. She has a pending complaint for doing this kind of thing before and she's been censured by the appellate courts for doing this kind of thing with bail. I'm no palm reader, but I see a writ of mandamus in her future, maybe a BODA action. Fingers crossed maybe this is a Jim Barr type of scenario where her hubris gets the best of her.

Anonymous said...

How long will it be before Judge Franklin reinvents herself the way some of her fellow judges have. She can take lessons from Mike Fields, who is now woke and a proponent of "Meaningful Bail Reform" as evidenced by his laughable editorial in today's Chron. Few judges were more oppressive with bail on misdemeanors than Fields, yet now it is all unincorns and rainbows!

Mark my words, even Franklin can become an opportunist like Fields if she tries hard enough.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking the time to take out the trash, Murray. Our anglo-saxon system of jurisprudence is based on the presumption of innocence, not the suppositions of ignorance. That knowledgeable lawyers should put up with mob elected judges is a disgrace to the profession, and this grasping dragon wearing a robe is a clear example.

Anonymous said...

Just making sure you saw that the Court of Criminal Appeals, in a 7-0 opinion with two judges concurring, rejected much of what you said about Judge Franklin's bail practices:

https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=cad2b1ff-188b-48ba-8b98-c477bbd2dcac&coa=coscca&DT=OPINION&MediaID=18d30f9c-35c5-4351-a7e1-354cdf63c403


Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion backing up Judge Franklin's bail practices?

https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=cad2b1ff-188b-48ba-8b98-c477bbd2dcac&coa=coscca&DT=OPINION&MediaID=18d30f9c-35c5-4351-a7e1-354cdf63c403