¶1concurring.
¶2It is apparent from the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by the court, as well as the court’s statements in the record, that the trial court considered facts derived solely from an offense report which was never formally introduced into evidence. I write separately to address the propriety of the court’s actions.
¶3In a hearing on a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction of bail, the trial court is required to consider the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged and the circumstances under which it was committed. Tex.CRIm. PROC-Code. Ann. § 17.15 (Vernon Supp. 2000) (emphasis added). It is well settled that the Rules of Evidence are not applicable in such hearings. Tex.R. Evid. 101(d)(1)(e); Garcia v. State, 775 S.W.2d 879, 880 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1989, no pet.).
¶4At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court announced that, in reaching its decision, it had considered facts contained in an offense report. The trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contain a written request by the trial judge that the district clerk include the offense report in the clerk’s record. The report itself contains a notation initialed by the trial judge indicating that it had been “considered by agreement.” The document’s inclusion in the clerk’s record without objection renders it a proper component of the record on appeal. See Killion v. State, 503 S.W.2d 765, 766 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); cf. Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 509-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Daw v. State, 17 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Tex.App.—Waco 2000, no pet.). We may thus consider its contents in determining whether the trial court’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion.
¶5While I continue to be concerned about the parameters of what is appropriate for the trial court to consider in a bail reduction hearing, I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion.