State v. Henderson
2017 Ohio 2678
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Steve L. Henderson was indicted on May 18, 2016 for participation in a criminal gang (2nd‑degree felony) and multiple counts of having a weapon under disability (3rd‑degree felonies).
- Trial court set bond at $100,000 on June 21, 2016 with conditions: no weapons and stay away from co‑defendant; Henderson posted bond and was released.
- State moved on December 2, 2016 to reconsider bond, alleging Henderson violated conditions and posed a safety risk; hearing held December 6, 2016 where police testified about social media threats.
- At the hearing the prosecutor said the state sought a significant increase in bond (over $750,000) but not an outright denial; nevertheless the trial court revoked Henderson’s bond and ordered him taken into custody.
- After this appeal was filed, on January 19, 2017 the trial court reinstated bail, setting bond at $750,000.
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot because the trial court’s later order effectively set aside/terminated the bond revocation (or otherwise superseded it), leaving no live controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2937.222 applied to the bond revocation | State: statute did not apply because it did not seek denial of bail at hearing; court revoked under inherent powers | Henderson: revocation required statutory findings by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2937.222(B) | Court declined to decide applicability; outcome resolved on mootness grounds |
| Whether required findings (clear and convincing evidence of guilt risk of serious harm and lack of reasonable conditions) were made | State: even if statute applied, evidence presented supported required findings | Henderson: trial court failed to make required statutory findings | Court did not decide on merits because appeal was moot |
| Whether the appeal from bond revocation was moot after trial court reset bond | State: January 19 order renders appeal moot; dismiss | Henderson: argues $750,000 is effectively denial of bail; appeal still viable | Court: appeal dismissed — reinstatement/superseding order removed live controversy |
| Proper procedural vehicle to challenge allegedly excessive bond | State: not directly before court; excessive-bail claims typically by habeas corpus | Henderson: argued increased bond tantamount to denial | Court: noted excessive-bail claims are generally for habeas corpus and that the January 19 order was not before this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 1991) (court will not decide moot questions)
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (Ohio 1910) (mootness dismissal principle cited)
- Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 2001) (habeas corpus is proper remedy for excessive bail challenges)
- In re De Fronzo, 49 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1977) (habeas corpus as remedy for excessive bail)
- James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74 Ohio App.3d 788 (10th Dist. 1992) (mootness and judicial restraint principles)
- Culver v. Warren, 84 Ohio App.3d 373 (11th Dist. 1992) (definition of mootness as lacking a genuine live controversy)