Petitioner v. Martin

1

2022-Ohio-3

LAWRENCE HALLORAN Petitioner v. RUSSELL MARTIN, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO SHERIFF Respondent

No. 21 CAD 12 0066

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Delaware

December 30, 2021

Writ of Habeas Corpus

For Petitioner

JOHN R. CORNELY

Delaware County Public

Defender's Office

For Respondent

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL

Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney

VINCE J. VILLIO

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

Delaware County Prosecutor's Office

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Judges

OPINION

HOFFMAN, J.

{¶1} Petitioner Lawrence Halloran filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 21, 2021, and an amended petition on December 23, 2021. Mr. Halloran is currently detained in the Delaware County Jail. He maintains the $100, 000 bond the trial court set in his cases is excessive. On December 20, 2021, Mr. Halloran was charged with one count of domestic violence and one count of aggravated menacing, both first degree misdemeanors (Delaware Municipal Court Case No. 21CRB01594). On December 22, 2021, Mr. Halloran was also charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor of domestic violence arising from the same incident (Delaware Municipal Court Case No. 21CRB01615). Mr. Halloran contends he is financially unable to post the bail set by the Delaware Municipal Court. The Court finds the $100, 000 bail excessive and grants Mr. Halloran's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denies Respondent Sheriff Russell L. Martin's Motion to Dismiss.

FACTS

{¶2} The Law Enforcement Arrest Report Probable Cause Affidavit sets forth the following summary of facts:

[K.M.] stated she was attacked by her boyfriend, Lawrence Halloran, after he believed she had taken his phone. [K.M.] stated Mr. Halloran grabbed a kitchen knife and came at her stomach and throat with it. [K.M.] stated Mr. Halloran stated he was going to, "kill her," and that he was going to, "bleed her out before help could come." At the time of this call, [K.M.] and Mr. Halloran reside together in the same home as boyfriend and girlfriend.

{¶3} The fourth degree domestic violence misdemeanor charge further indicates, "[K.M.] ran out the residence naked with no shoes on even though the outside temperature was roughly thirty degrees" However, at the bail hearing, the prosecutor stated K.M. fled the residence clothed in a robe.

{¶4} The trial court conducted a bail hearing on December 20, 2021, in Case No. 21CRB01594. The state requested a high bail, with no ten percent option, and SCRAM monitoring. The prosecutor noted Mr. Halloran's history of substance abuse and controlling/abusive behavior, that he is bipolar and does not always take his medicine, and that Mr. Halloran attempted suicide five years ago. The Delaware Municipal Court set bail at $100, 000 cash, surety or real estate bond. On December 23, 2021, in Case No. 21CRB01615, the court again set bail at $100, 000 cash, surety or real estate bond. The two cases were subsequently consolidated. The $100, 000 bail includes both cases.

{¶5} In his amended habeas petition, Mr. Halloran contends the bail set by the municipal court is excessive, unlawful and in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. Mr. Halloran requests a reduction in the amount of bail or, in the alternative, for release on his own recognizance.

STANDARD OF REVIEW/BURDEN OF PROOF

{¶6} In Mohamed v. Eckelberry, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 5, the Ohio Supreme Court explained, "in an original action, an appellate court may permit a habeas petitioner to introduce evidence to prove his claim and then exercise its own discretion in imposing an appropriate bail amount." Thus, the standard of review is de novo. See also Dubose v. McGuffey, 1st District Hamilton No. C-210489, 2021-Ohio-3815, ___N.E.3d___, ¶ 14 ("Mohamed suggests that our standard of review is de novo."); Stevens v. Navarre, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-01010, 2021-Ohio-551, 168 N.E.3d 578, ¶ 8 ("[W]e glean from Mohamed that we must conduct a de novo review in our determination of whether the pretrial bail is excessive.")

{¶7} Finally, the burden of proof is on Mr. Halloran to establish entitlement to a writ alleging excessive bail. Ahmad v. Plummer, 126 Ohio St.3d 262, 2010-Ohio-3757, 933 N.E.2d 256, ¶ 4. See also Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 326, 744 N.E.2d 763 ("the burden of proof in a case alleging excessive bail is * * * on the petitioner").

{¶8} The record before the Court consists of the verified amended habeas petition, the exhibits attached thereto, and Sheriff Martin's Motion to Dismiss and the exhibits attached thereto. Neither party requested an opportunity to submit additional evidence and the parties agreed to submit the writ on the pleadings, without an evidentiary hearing.

ANALYSIS

{¶9} In addition to the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged, under Crim.R. 46(C) we must also "consider many other factors that are specific to the accused, such as the weight of the evidence and the defendant's financial resources." Mohamed at ¶ 7. "Any financial conditions [of release] shall be in an amount and type which are least costly to the defendant while also sufficient to reasonably assure the defendant's future appearance in court." Crim.R. 46(B). That is because "[t]he sole purpose of bail is to ensure a person's attendance in court." Dubose at ¶ 17, quoting State ex rel. Sylvester v. Neal, 140 Ohio St.3d 47, 2014-Ohio-2926, 14 N.E.3d 1024, ¶ 16.

{¶10} R.C. 2937.22(A) addresses this point providing that: “Bail is security for the appearance of an accused to appear and answer to a specific criminal or quasi-criminal charge in any court or before any magistrate at a specific time or at any time to which a case may be continued, and not depart without leave.” Thus, “[b]ail is excessive when it is higher than is reasonably necessary to serve the government's interest in ensuring the accused's appearance at trial. [Citations omitted.] Mohamed, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, at ¶ 29 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). “[S]etting a high bail in order to keep someone accused of a crime incarcerated pretrial is both statutorily and constitutionally unlawful.” Id. at ¶ 24. (Stewart, J., concurring).

{¶11} At the bail hearing, Mr. Halloran's counsel explained Mr. Halloran is 70 years old and there was no indication he caused any physical harm to K.M. Counsel requested Mr. Halloran be released on his own recognizance and indicated he would reside with his son in Columbus. Counsel also noted Mr. Halloran's Social Security would be suspended while he is incarcerated and that income is used to pay rent for the apartment where K.M. currently resides.

{¶12} Mr. Halloran's amended petition alleges these same facts reiterating that his main source of income is Social Security, which will be suspended while he is incarcerated. Mr. Halloran further alleges he is indigent and unable to pay a substantial bail bond. He is represented by the public defender's office. The prosecutors involved in this matter do not dispute these financial points and introduced no evidence at the bail hearing or in the Motion to Dismiss to the contrary. Instead, the prosecutors focus on the victim's safety.

{¶13} We do not attach little importance to concerns for K.M.'s safety. We acknowledge Crim.R. 46(C), R.C. 2919.251(A)(2), and R.C. 2919.251(B) set forth factors the prosecutors properly focused on in addressing bail in this matter. In his Motion to Dismiss, Sheriff Martin references the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Ahmad v. Plummer as a basis to uphold the amount of bail ordered by the trial court. However, we find the Ahmad case distinguishable from the present facts.

{¶14} In Ahmad, the Court found the bail was not excessive because of the seriousness of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder, the substantial evidence against the defendant, the confirmation of his identity, the existence of two prior domestic violence protection orders against defendant, and the petitioner's ability to access large sums of money. Ahmad, 126 Ohio St.3d 262, 2010-Ohio-3757, 933 N.E.2d 256, at ¶ 12-17. Here, Mr. Halloran is charged with two counts of domestic violence arising from the same incident and one count of aggravated menacing. Further, Mr. Halloran consented to a protection order at his bail hearing and the trial court ordered SCRAM monitoring. A prior protection order did not exist at the time of the incident giving rise to the criminal charges. Finally, and most importantly, unlike the defendant in Ahmad, Mr. Halloran is not able to access large sums of money to pay his bail.

{¶15} Using the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Mohamed v. Eckelberry as guidance and comparing and applying its analysis to the facts of this case, we conclude the $100, 000 bail is excessive. Accordingly, Mr. Halloran's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted and his bail in the consolidated cases, Delaware Municipal Court Case Nos. 21CRB01594 and 21CRB01615, is reduced to $10, 000, secured by a deposit of 10% cash, surety or real estate bond. All other non-financial conditions of release imposed by the Delaware Municipal Court shall remain in place.

CONCLUSION

{¶16} Mr. Halloran's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted and Sheriff Martin's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

{¶17} COSTS TO RESPONDENT.

{¶18} IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hoffman, J. Wise, John, J. concurs and Baldwin, P.J. dissents {¶19} I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in this matter. While I acknowledge that precedent supports a conclusion that bail is primarily designed to insure a party's appearance, I am concerned that the majority's significant reduction does not give...