Small v. Hooks (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8724
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Petitioner Mykel Small was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs and is incarcerated at Ross Correctional Institution.
- Small appealed his conviction to the Franklin County Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
- He moved in the trial court for bail and suspension of sentence pending appeal; the trial court summarily denied the motion.
- Small filed a similar motion in the court of appeals; the court of appeals denied it.
- Small sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Ohio Supreme Court requesting release on bond pending appeal and suspension of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to bond pending appeal | Small: high likelihood of reversal on appeal (ineffective assistance) justifies bond | State: denial was within court's discretion; petitioner must show abuse of discretion | Denied — petitioner failed to show abuse of discretion |
| Whether petitioner demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits | Small: bald assertion that appeal will likely result in reversal | State: strength of appeal cannot be determined from bald assertions | Court: bald assertions insufficient; petitioner bears burden to prove right to release |
| Whether petitioner is a flight risk | Small: lifelong Columbus resident with family locally and has served five years, so no incentive to flee | State: flight risk is inherently greater after conviction | Court: petitioner’s assertions did not overcome presumption of increased flight risk after conviction |
| Standard of review for denial of postconviction bail | Small: implicit argument that denial was improper | State: denial reviewed for patent abuse of discretion because there is no right to bond after conviction | Court: applied patent-abuse-of-discretion standard and found none |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591 (Ohio 1994) (habeas corpus may remedy erroneous denial of bond after conviction)
- Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 2001) (petitioner bears burden to establish right to release)
- Jurek v. McFaul, 39 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 1988) (no right to bail after conviction; denial disturbed only for patent abuse of discretion)
- Christopher v. McFaul, 18 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 1985) (bald assertions about likelihood of reversal do not show abuse of discretion)
- Coleman v. McGettrick, 2 Ohio St.2d 177 (Ohio 1965) (discussing standards for disturbing denial of bail)