
    Burton Leon SPELL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.
    No. AP-76,962.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 4, 2013.
    Dennis D. Horn, Kirbyville, TX, for appellant.
    Lindsey Roberts, Georgetown, TX, Lisa C. McMinn, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying bail under Article 1, § 11a, of the Texas Constitution. On January 6, 2013, while free on bail for several offenses, Appellant was arrested and jailed for a new offense of burglary of a habitation. On January 8, 2013, after a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court denied bail under Article 1, § 11a, because Appellant is alleged to have committed a felony (burglary of a habitation) while released on bail for a prior felony for which he had been indicted. Appellant appealed, contending that the State failed to present evidence “substantially showing” his guilt for the burglary of a habitation. He argues that the evidence shows, at most, evidence of a criminal trespass.

At the hearing to deny bail, the State called Deputy William Land to testify about the burglary. Land stated that he met and spoke with the owners of a mobile home who told him someone had broken into the home and removed copper wiring from the ceiling fans. The owners did not live in the home, and told Land they did not know if any other property was missing, but they could tell someone had been staying there without permission. Land also spoke with people who lived next door to the mobile home. They told him Appellant and his girlfriend had been staying at that home the week prior to the deputy being there.

Under Art. 1, § 11a, the State has the burden to present evidence “substantially showing” Appellant’s guilt of the burglary. This showing is “far less” than proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is necessary at a trial on the merits. Lee v. State, 683 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Ex parte Moore, 594 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). But that burden must be considered in light of the general rule that favors the allowance of bail.

In the instant case the evidence does not substantially show Appellant’s guilt of burglary of a habitation. Appellant had been staying in the home without permission about a week before Deputy Land went out there. But the owners of the home did not live in the home and no evidence was presented to show when they had last checked the home. There was no showing how long the home had been uninhabited so as to provide a time frame in which the theft of the copper wire could be determined. Other than Appellant’s presence in the home for a week, no evidence connected him to the theft of copper wire. See Lee, 683 S.W.2d at 9. Given the absence of evidence concerning the timing of the theft in the uninhabited home, Appellant’s presence in the home, without more, does not substantially show his guilt of burglary. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying bail is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court to set a reasonable bail. No motion for rehearing will be entertained. 
      
      . Article 1, § 11a, provides in part:
      Any person ... accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, ... and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense ... committed while on bail ... may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused.
     