MEMORANDUM OPINION Joshua Lee Turner appeals the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion for bond reduction. Appellant is charged with two counts of unlawful restraint classified as third degree felonies, and two counts of unlawful restraint classified as state jail felonies. ^[1] Bond was initially set at $500,000. Appellant moved the district court to reduce the bond to $20,000. The trial court denied his motion. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigator, Terri Loftin, investigated the home where Appellant lived with his partner and two young girls, ages five and four. The home was in a squalid, unkept state. The room where the girls slept contained a stained mattress and an abundance of toys scattered on the floor. Loftin also observed a wire cage containing a pink porta-potty and a dirty baby bed mattress. Interviews with the children disclosed that the children went “to jail” in the wire cage when they misbehaved. According to the children, their incarceration might last for one or two days. Sometimes they received only bread and water while “in jail.” Their main complaint was that they were always hungry. The two children were removed from the home.

Crim. App. 1980). The reviewing court will not disturb the decision of the trial court so long as the trial court’s decision is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Cooley v. State, 232 S.W.3d 228, 234 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). The trial court should consider the following factors in setting bail.

Discussion Appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce bail by considering only one of the five factors set out in Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and none of the other considerations developed in case law. Article 17.15(1) requires that bail be sufficiently high to insure the accused’s appearance when required. Appellant has a steady work record, no previous criminal history, and friends and relatives in the community. He has lived in the county for over ten years. He admits to a long, regular use of marijuana, but has no arrest record. Article 17.15(5) requires the future safety of the victim and the community be considered. Both Loftin and Detective Long agreed that the children were being well cared for by people who would protect them if Appellant tried to contact them. Neither expressed concern that Appellant’s release presented a risk to the children. The ability to make bail is to be regarded. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 17.15(4). But it is not dispositive. See Jones v. State, 803 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant testified that he contacted bondsmen and, unsurprisingly, he was unable to pay the premium for a half million dollar bail bond. Appellant thought he could pay the premium for a $20,000 bail bond. As the State argues, the evidence regarding Appellant’s ability to make bail is scanty. At the time of the children’s removal, Appellant lived in a squalid house with hardly any furniture. He makes $11.85 per hour at the junior college. Even without additional evidence, we believe it is safe to assume that a person in Appellant’s circumstances does not possess brokerage or savings accounts or other personal resources available to pay the premium for a half million dollar bond. In denying Appellant’s motion to reduce bond, the trial court understandably gave special weight to “the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15(3). The picture of the victims in the record shows two apparently healthy little girls. But the record also shows a parent taunting a crying little girl locked in a wire cage for stealing something to eat. The odious nature of the crime justifies the greater weight given to this factor in setting the amount of bail required. However, Appellant is charged with a third degree felony. The maximum sentence for a third degree felony is ten years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34(a) (West 2019). Bail in the amount of $500,000 is almost never required except in capital or murder cases. See, e.g., Ludwig v. State, 812 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Hunt, 138 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d); Montalvo, 315 S.W.3d at 593. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to assure the defendant’s presence in court. Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d at 479. It is not to be used as an instrument of punishment or oppression. Appellant has already been in jail nearly fourteen months awaiting trial. After considering the rules set out in Article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence presented in the trial court, and the relevant considerations in the case law, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s request for a pre- trial bail reduction. Appellant’s issue is sustained.

DISPOSITION Because we sustain Appellant’s sole issue, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BILL BASS Justice

Opinion delivered May 12, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Bass, Retired J., Twelfth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 12, 2021

NO. 12-20-00230-CR

EX PARTE: JOSHUA LEE TURNER

Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2020-0183)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in judgment of the court below, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. Bill Bass, Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Bass, Retired J., Twelfth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.