State v. MurrayState v. Murray
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Arenstein & Gallagher, Hal Arenstein and Kara C. Blackney, for
WINKLER, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appеllant Marcus Murray is detained in jail without bail awaiting his trial on two second-degree-felony offenses related to a November 2019 incident. He was initially afforded bail and released on a monetary bail bond. The court revoked that bond after a court proceeding in November 2021. Murray attempted to flee from the courtroom, was found in contempt, and sentenced to a six-month jail term. In May 2022, upon Murray‘s completion of his contempt sentence, Murray‘s attorney requested that the court releаse Murray on the original bond or set a new bond in the November 2019 case. After a hearing, the trial denied the motion, thereby detaining Murray pretrial without bail. Murray now appeals that May 2022 order.
{¶2} In one assignment of error, Murray complains that the trial court fаiled to comply with the dictates of
I. Background Facts and Procedures
{¶3} The record shows that Murray had been granted bail in the case involving two second-degree-felony оffenses, felonious assault and improper discharge of firearm into a habitation. Bond eventually was set at $100,000 at ten percent. Murray posted bond on November 22, 2019, and was released.
{¶4} After a series of continuances, the case was set for a jury trial on November 16, 2021. Instead of a trial on that day, the court issued an order that revoked Murray‘s bond. Murray tried to flee from the courtroom, apparently in response to the bond revocation. The trial court found him in contempt and imposed a six-month jail term. The following day, defense counsel filed a motion for reinstatement of bond and requesting a full hearing on the matter, claiming the revocation was based on the prosecuting witness‘s “unsubstantiated statement” that Murray had threatened to harm her if she appeared in court. The trial court did not rule on the November 17, 2021 motion, but it did deny a January 2022 motion for reinstatement of bond in early February.
{¶5} On May 9, 2022, at Murray‘s request, the trial court held a bond hearing. Defense counsel moved the court to reset conditions for release, noting that Murray had finally completed his contempt sentence for attempting to flee from the courtroom in November 2021. Defense counsel told the court that the clerk‘s office still had the ten percent of $100,000 posted by Murray‘s family, аnd that Murray had used his time in jail wisely, had a job to go back to and the support of his family, and had made every appearance in the case, which involved over 20 appearances.
{¶6} The assistant prosecutor presented some informаtion related to the underlying charges but did not proceed in accordance with
{¶7} Two days later, on May 11, 2022, the trial court denied the “motion to set bond” by entry providing:
This cause came on for hearing upon the Motion of the defendant to Set Bond. Upon the arguments of counsel for the defendant and the State of Ohio, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is found that the motion is nоt well taken, and the same is therefore overruled.
{¶8} This appeal followed.
II. Jurisdiction
{¶9} The state argues this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Murray‘s appeal. Generally, our jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders.
{¶10}
{¶11}
{¶12} The state argues that
{¶13} Murray asserts that
{¶14} The state fails to adequately explain why an order revoking a pretrial bail bond would be final and appealable under
{¶15} In Cruz, the petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Eighth District Court of Appeals to have his bond reset in a case involving first-degree-felony offenses. The record showed that Cruz had been released on bond but taken into custody for violating a condition of release. Cruz at fn. 1. About seven months later, he filed a motion in the trial court to reinstate bond. About two months later, when his motion to reinstate bond was pending, Cruz filed a habeas petition challenging his pretrial detention without bail. The appellate court held habeas relief was not available. In part, the court explained that Cruz had an adequate remedy at law by virtue
{¶16} The state cites two cases in support of its position that the trial court‘s May 2022 entry overruling Murray‘s motion to set bond is not a final appealable order. Those cases, however, do not involve a challenge to an order detaining a defendant pretrial that both affords no bail at all and involves the type of offense referenced in
{¶17} Ultimately, Murray argues that the May 2022 order denying his motion to reinstate bond is “an order denying bail” and а final appealable order as contemplated by
III. Standards and Procedures of R.C. 2937.222
{¶18} In his sole assignment of error, Murray argues the trial court did not comply with
{¶19} Murray specifically points out that under the statute the prosecutor is required to prove at a hearing “that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the accused committed the offense with which [he] is charged, of proving that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and of proving that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of that person and the community.”
{¶20} Further, before denying certain alleged offenders bail, the court must “find[]” after the hearing that the state established the conditions set forth in
{¶21} When making a bail determination under
- The nаture and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is an offense of violence or involves alcohol or a drug of abuse;
- The weight of the evidence against the accused;
- The history and characteristics of the accused, including * * * (a) The character, physicаl and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and criminal history of the accused
[and] (b) Whether, at the time of the current allеged offense or at the time of the arrest of the accused, the accused was on probation, parole, post-release control, or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for the commission of an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States or under a municipal ordinance; and - The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person‘s release.
{¶22} Ordinarily, upon review of an order appealed under
{¶23} Here, the state does not present an argument addressing the merits of thе assignment of error.3 Further, the record, including the trial court‘s generic May 2022 entry, substantiates Murray‘s position that the trial court did not proceed in accordance with
{¶24} Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying pretrial bail without comрlying with the requirements of
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
MYERS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.