Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00436-CR
Ex parte Chloe Evans
On appeal from the
77th District Court of Limestone County, Texas
Judge Amy Thomas Ward, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 33364-B
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chloe Evans appeals the trial court’s denial of Evans’ “Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction,” filed on November 3, 2025,
and heard and decided on November 7, 2025. Evans raises three issues on
appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order denying habeas relief.
BACKGROUND
While released on bond for three felony offenses of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, Evans absconded while in court for those offenses. She
had been ordered by the trial court judge to submit to a drug test and not to
leave until that was done. She absconded as she was being led to the drug test and ran out of the courthouse. She then hopped in a vehicle and hit two other
vehicles in the courthouse parking lot as she was fleeing. The subsequent
chase of Evans reached speeds of 100 miles per hour and ended when she
crashed into other vehicles. Evans testified that she hit an “18-wheeler.” She
sustained injuries in that crash but left the hospital against medical advice.
As a result of her actions, Evans was accused of committing three more
offenses: evading arrest with a vehicle, aggravated assault of a public servant,
and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Bonds totaling $150,000 were
set in these new, yet-to-be-indicted offenses. Evans filed an application for a
writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction in those bond amounts because they
were “excessive, oppressive[,] and beyond her financial means….” Evans
further alleged in the application that her injuries from the crash could not be
properly addressed in jail and requested a personal recognizance bond because
she was not a flight risk or alternatively, a reduction of the bond to a
reasonable amount.
NO BOND
In her first issue, Evans complains that the trial court erred in denying
her application and holding her without bond. However, there was never a nobond order on the charges at issue. Rather, the no-bond order was issued on
October 3, 2025 in the other aggravated assault offenses for which she
Ex parte Evans Page 2 appeared in court and then fled the courthouse. Those offenses had already
been assigned case number 15701-A. 1 The application for writ of habeas
corpus, filed on November 3, 2025, was assigned a different case number,
33364-B, and referenced the new charges arising from Evans’ flight: evading
arrest with a vehicle, aggravated assault of a public servant, and aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. Evans alleged in her application that bonds on
the new charges totaled $150,000 and she sought to have that total amount
reduced or be released on a personal recognizance bond. She did not complain
about the no-bond order in her application. Further, Evans only appealed case
number 33364-B, not case number 15701-A, and thus, the no-bond order is not
a part of this appeal.
Because a no-bond order is not a part of case number 33364-B and this
appeal, Evans’ first issue is overruled.
ART. 17.15(a) MANDATORY FACTORS
Evans next complains that the trial court erred in denying her habeas
application when it failed to apply the mandatory factors of article 17.15(a) of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This issue is premised on the issuance
of a no-bond order. As one was not issued in the underlying case in this appeal,
1
The reporter’s record containing the hearing which resulted in the no-bond order and filed in this appeal appears to have been mistakenly labeled as the hearing on the habeas application when it clearly relates only to trial court case number 15701-A. A supplemental reporter’s record was filed later in this appeal containing a transcription of the hearing on the habeas application being appealed.
Ex parte Evans Page 3 Evans’ second issue is also overruled.
DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
Evans’ third issue regarding a violation of the Due Process Clause is also
premised on the issuance of a no-bond order. As previously explained, a nobond order was not issued in the underlying case in this appeal. Accordingly,
this issue is also overruled.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled each issue on appeal, the trial court’s “Order on
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction,” which denies
Evans’ “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction” and
was signed on November 7, 2025, is affirmed.
LEE HARRIS
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 13, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
OT06
Ex parte Evans Page 4