Jenkins v. Billy

Ohio Supreme Court

Jenkins v. Billy

538 N.E.2d 1045, 43 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 81

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1989

DocketNo. 89-478

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 538 N.E.2d 1045 (Jenkins v. Billy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. Billy, 538 N.E.2d 1045, 43 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 81 (Ohio 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, stating three grounds: that the trial court has proper jurisdiction, which petitioner does not challenge, that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law via a direct appeal from the denial of a similar request for a writ filed in the Court of Appeals for Licking County, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of bond. We decline to dismiss his petition on any of these grounds, and in so doing, reaffirm the holding in State v. Bevacqua (1946), 147 Ohio St. 20, 33 O.O. 186, 67 N.E. 2d 786, that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to raise the claim of excessive bail in pretrial release cases, notwithstanding our recent opinion in Dapice v. Stickrath (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 298, 533 N.E. 2d 339, which concerned release on bail after conviction. Thus, we overrule respondent’s motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, we decline to issue the writ.

The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. See Crim. R. 46(A). Crim. R. 46(F) specifies what conditions a court must consider in setting bail. These include family and community ties and past criminal record, but also include other matters. Crim. R. 46(C)(4) permits a court to impose a cash bond. Moreover, “[t]he amount of bail is largely within the sound discretion of the court.” Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St. 2d 238, 239, 50 O.O. 2d 477, 257 N.E. 2d 397, 398.

Here, petitioner alleges no facts that indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial court or that appropriate grounds for independent review by this court exist. In re DeFronzo (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 271, 3 O.O. 3d 408, 361 N.E. 2d 448. R.C. 2725.06 provides that “[w]hen 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.” We find nothing alleged in the petition that makes it appear that the writ ought to issue. Accordingly, we decline to issue the writ.

Writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, stating three grounds: that the trial court has proper jurisdiction, which petitioner does not challenge, that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law via a direct appeal from the denial of a similar request for a writ filed in the Court of Appeals for Licking County, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of bond. We decline to dismiss his petition on any of these grounds, and in so doing, reaffirm the holding in State v. Bevacqua (1946), 147 Ohio St. 20, 33 O.O. 186, 67 N.E. 2d 786, that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to raise the claim of excessive bail in pretrial release cases, notwithstanding our recent opinion in Dapice v. Stickrath (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 298, 533 N.E. 2d 339, which concerned release on bail after conviction. Thus, we overrule respondent’s motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, we decline to issue the writ.

The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. See Crim. R. 46(A). Crim. R. 46(F) specifies what conditions a court must consider in setting bail. These include family and community ties and past criminal record, but also include other matters. Crim. R. 46(C)(4) permits a court to impose a cash bond. Moreover, “[t]he amount of bail is largely within the sound discretion of the court.” Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St. 2d 238, 239, 50 O.O. 2d 477, 257 N.E. 2d 397, 398.

Here, petitioner alleges no facts that indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial court or that appropriate grounds for independent review by this court exist. In re DeFronzo (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 271, 3 O.O. 3d 408, 361 N.E. 2d 448. R.C. 2725.06 provides that “[w]hen 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.” We find nothing alleged in the petition that makes it appear that the writ ought to issue. Accordingly, we decline to issue the writ.

Writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 N.E.2d 1045, 43 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-billy-ohio-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack