454 N.E.2d 987 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1982
This matter is an original action filed in this court by the petitioner Jack C. Gentry. The action is brought pursuant to R.C.
The court, finding it advisable under the circumstances of this case and having been so requested by the state, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon said findings, enters final judgment herein.
2. That petitioner, on June 17, 1982, appeared, without counsel, in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
3. That the trial court continued petitioner's case for arraignment to June 22, 1982. Bond was set by the court at $150,000, no ten percent.
4. That petitioner, on June 22, 1982, was present in court with counsel for arraignment. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and made an oral motion to reduce bond. The court denied the motion and ordered the bond continued at $150,000, no ten percent.
5. That on July 1, 1982, petitioner filed a "Motion To Reduce Bail"; hearing on said motion was held on July 13, 1982, and on July 14, 1982, the court again denied petitioner's motion.
6. That petitioner is a resident of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and was brought to Lucas County pursuant to a warrant for extradition.
7. That the petitioner has a previous felony conviction for manslaughter in the year 1969.
8. That petitioner is under continuing confinement in the Lucas County Corrections Center.
9. That the petitioner's trial is scheduled to be held on September 20, 1982.
2. That Section
3. That where a petition is filed which states a proper cause of action for a writ of habeas corpus, and there is no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, Section
4. That the petitioner is, upon his application, properly before this court; that this court has jurisdiction and is required to exercise that jurisdiction in the case at bar.
5. That petitioner is charged with an offense that is bailable pursuant to Section
6. That in determining the amount of bail to be fixed, the standards set forth in R.C.
In fixing bail the court must apply the standards set forth in Crim. R. 46(F) which reads:
"Conditions of release; basis. In determining which conditions of release will reasonably assure appearance, the judge shall, on the basis of available information, take into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against the accused, the accused's family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mental condition, the length of his residence in the community, his record of convictions, and his record of appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or of failure to appear at court proceedings."
What bail is or is not reasonable is a question for the exercise of sound discretion by the court. The decision is dependent upon all the facts and circumstances in each individual case. Bland v. Holden (1970),
In Bland, supra, the Supreme Court held that bail of $45,000 for the charges of rape, armed robbery, breaking and entering, burglary and malicious entry was not excessive. It should be noted that Bland was decided in 1970, over twelve years ago. In the case now before us, we find a charge of aggravated murder with bail, set by the trial court, at $150,000.
In considering the seriousness of the offense charged for the purpose of fixing bail, the court must assume the truth of the allegations of the indictment. State v. Richardson, supra. In addition, in applying the tests set forth in Crim. R. 46(F), we find that the petitioner is not a resident of this county; that petitioner has a prior felony record by way of a conviction for manslaughter and the nature of the offense is that it is one of the most serious criminal offenses with which one can be charged, the penalty for the same being imprisonment for life.
Considering the facts as we have found them and the law as we cited herein, we find that the bail set by the trial court is neither excessive nor unreasonable. We further find that, in any event, the amount of bail in any given case is basically within the sound discretion of the trial court. Davenport v. Tehan
(1970),
Accordingly, the relief demanded by petitioner is denied.1 Petitioner is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lucas County, Ohio. Costs of this action are assessed to petitioner.
Relief denied.
CONNORS, P.J., and BARBER, J., concur.
"However, upon the facts before us, we are constrained to take the position that the question whether the petitioner, Schott, has been denied due process of law has been raised.
"Beyond question, no citizen of Ohio may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.
"Therefore, one who is deprived of his liberty by an Ohio court without due process of law is entitled to a writ of habeas corpusfor the purpose of inquiring into the matter. 26 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 568, Habeas Corpus, Section 14, and cases cited thereunder." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, R.C.
"When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is presented, if it appears that the writ ought to issue, a court or judge authorized to grant the writ must grant it forthwith." (Emphasis added.)
Cf. R.C.
The effect of the granting of the writ is to require "[t]he officer or person to whom a writ of habeas corpus is directed * * * [to] convey the person imprisoned or detained, and named in the writ, before the judge granting the writ * * *." R.C.
Therefore, the issuance of the writ simply assures the petitioner a timely hearing before a court. The merits of the petitioner's allegations concerning his detention must be tested upon the execution and return of the writ if granted and a determination may thus be made as to whether the relief requested in the petition shall be granted or denied. *147