Bland v. Holden

Decision Date25 March 1970
Docket NumberNo. 69-847,69-847
Parties, 50 O.O.2d 477 BLAND v. HOLDEN, Judge, et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Otto Beatty, Jr., Columbus, for petitioner.

C. Howard Johnson, Pros. Atty., and James J. O'Grady, Columbus, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. Petitioner's contention is that he is being held under excessive bail, contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Petitioner is under indictment on 17 counts as follows: five counts of rape, five counts of armed robbery, five counts of breaking and entering, one count of burglary of an inhabited dwelling and one count of malicious entry. The five counts of rape, robbery and breaking and entering all arose out of the same five transactions. His bail is set at $45,000.

The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at his trial. The amount of bail is largely within the sound discretion of the court. The court may consider the character and past record of the accused, the seriousness of and the number of crimes for which he is charged and the penalties attached thereto. Annotation, 72 A.L.R. 801. If the penalty is not great, the accused may have no incentive to jump bail. On the other hand, if an accused is charged with crimes the conviction for which would result in long incarceration, with little hope of early release or probation, the incentive to abscond is greater and the amount must be such as to discourage the accused from absconding.

In the instant case, petitioner is charged with crimes for which, upon conviction, he has no chance of probation and in which the penalty is life imprisonment or long periods of incarceration. Therefore, it does not appear that the bail is excessive.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied and the petitioner is remanded to custody.

Petitioner remanded to custody.

TAFT, C. J., and LEACH, C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT DUNCAN and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.

LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • State v. Tibbetts
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • July 5, 2001
    ...The fact that Tibbetts was charged with two aggravated murders dictated a high amount of bail, if any. See Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 50 O.O.2d 477, 257 N.E.2d 397. Tibbetts was an indigent defendant and does not demonstrate how he would have been able to post any appropriat......
  • State v. Nields
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 29, 2001
    ...to abscond is greater and the amount must be such as to discourage the accused from absconding." Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 239, 50 O.O.2d 477, 257 N.E.2d 397, 398. Finally, defendant has not demonstrated how his failure to be released on bail could have reasonably affected ......
  • DuBose v. McGuffey
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 4, 2022
    ... ... abuse-of-discretion standard. Jenkins v. Billy, 43 ... Ohio St.3d 84, 85, 538 N.E.2d 1045 (1989); Bland v ... Holden, 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 239, 257 N.E.2d 397 (1970) ... ("The amount of bail is largely within the sound ... discretion of the court") ... ...
  • DuBose v. McGuffey
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 4, 2022
    ...amount of bail is the abuse-of-discretion standard. Jenkins v. Billy , 43 Ohio St.3d 84, 85, 538 N.E.2d 1045 (1989) ; Bland v. Holden , 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 239, 257 N.E.2d 397 (1970) ("The amount of bail is largely within the sound discretion of the court").{¶ 46} This accords with the decis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT