Mohamed v. Eckelberry
| Decision Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-0638,2020-0638 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.3d 1132,162 Ohio St.3d 583 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOHAMED v. ECKELBERRY, Sheriff. |
Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd., and Eric J. Allen, Columbus, for petitioner.
Derek W. DeVine, Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Hassan Mohamed, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the amount of his pretrial bond. He is in jail awaiting trial in the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas on multiple charges of attempted murder and felonious assault. We allowed the writ and ordered respondent, Seneca County Sheriff William Eckelberry, to file a return. 159 Ohio St.3d 1432, 2020-Ohio-3634, 148 N.E.3d 573. After the sheriff filed his return, we referred the matter to a master commissioner to conduct a hearing to determine whether Mohamed is being held unlawfully due to an excessive bond and to make a recommendation regarding an appropriate bond. 159 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2020-Ohio-4080, 150 N.E.3d 956.
{¶ 2} After a hearing, the master commissioner concluded that the $1,000,000 cash or surety bond on which Mohamed is being held is excessive and recommended modifying the financial conditions of Mohamed's bail to $200,000, secured by the deposit of 10 percent of the amount of the bail bond in cash, a surety bond, or property as allowed by law. The master commissioner recommended that the nonfinancial conditions of release imposed by the common pleas court remain in place.
{¶ 3} Mohamed did not file a response to the master commissioner's recommendation. The sheriff, however, filed a response challenging the master commissioner's conclusion that this court may independently review Mohamed's bond without first holding that the common pleas court abused its discretion. The sheriff also argued that a $1,000,000 bail bond is justified based on the seriousness of the crimes Mohamed is charged with, Mohamed's lack of ties to Seneca County, and the evidence of Mohamed's guilt. We address the sheriff's arguments below.
The standard of review
{¶ 4} Relying on In re DeFronzo , 49 Ohio St.2d 271, 273-274, 361 N.E.2d 448 (1977), the master commissioner concluded that in an original action for a writ of habeas corpus, an appellate court may receive evidence and exercise its own discretion concerning a petitioner's bail, without according deference to the trial court's determination. The sheriff does not dispute DeFronzo determination that a trial court had not abused its discretion in setting bail. Id. at ¶ 3-4.
{¶ 5} To be sure, in Ahmad , we did not expressly repudiate the court of appeals' statement about not finding an abuse of discretion. But contrary to the sheriff's argument, we did not abandon the rule articulated in DeFronzo . In fact, in Ahmad , we focused on the court of appeals' "de novo review of the habeas corpus claim" and its determination that "Ahmad failed to demonstrate that the pretrial bail is excessive." Id. at ¶ 4. Ahmad , therefore, confirms that 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.
The seriousness of the crimes
{¶ 6} The sheriff next argues that Mohamed's $1,000,000 bail bond is not excessive—and a $200,000 bail bond is inadequate—in view of the fact that Mohamed is charged with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault, all with firearm specifications. In support, the sheriff again points to Ahmad , in which a $3,000,000 bail bond on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder was found not to be excessive. The sheriff thus invites us to compare the seriousness of the charge in Ahmad's case to the seriousness of the charges in Mohamed's case.
{¶ 7} The nature and circumstances of the crime charged are relevant to any bail determination. Crim.R. 46(C)(1). But under Crim.R. 46(C), a court also must consider many other factors that are specific to the accused, such as the weight of the evidence against the defendant and the defendant's financial resources. Crim.R. 46(C)(2) and (4). Those factors are not nearly as strong here as they were in Ahmad's case. As explained in the master commissioner's recommendation, while Mohamed presented alibi evidence, not only was there "substantial evidence against" Ahmad, but he apparently had no plausible defense. Ahmad , 126 Ohio St.3d 262, 2010-Ohio-3757, 933 N.E.2d 256, at ¶ 11, 17. And the evidence showed that Ahmad and his family had significant resources—likely enough to be able to afford a $3,000,000 bond. Id. at ¶ 15. In contrast, Mohamed presented evidence showing that he is in a very different financial situation and cannot afford a $1,000,000 bond.
{¶ 8} Thus, contrary to what the sheriff argues, our holding in Ahmad does not validate the bond imposed by the court of common pleas in Mohamed's case.
The lack of ties to Seneca County
{¶ 9} The sheriff also argues that the master commissioner inappropriately gave weight to Mohamed's family ties in Ohio because those ties are not local to Seneca County. The sheriff refers to Crim.R. 46(C)(4), which directs the court to consider the defendant's "length of residence in the community."
{¶ 10} Contrary to what the sheriff suggests, the master commissioner did not give weight to any ties between Mohamed and the local community. In fact, the master commissioner noted that Mohamed does not have any connections in Seneca County. We may, however, consider Mohamed's family ties in Ohio and the fact that he would have a place to live in Columbus as "relevant information" under Crim.R. 46(C).
{¶ 11} The sheriff also argues that a $1,000,000 bond is justified because if Mohamed lives in Columbus while awaiting trial, it will be harder for the common pleas court to monitor him. We reject this argument because it does not relate to the financial conditions of Mohamed's pretrial release and therefore is not relevant to whether Mohamed's bail is excessive.
The strength of the state's case
{¶ 12} In his final argument, the sheriff reiterates the evidence against Mohamed in an attempt to show that the state has, in fact, indicted the right person. The sheriff argues that the state's evidence is "far superior" to and "much more reliable" than Mohamed's alibi evidence.
{¶ 13} The master commissioner acknowledged the evidence of Mohamed's guilt, while also recommending that we should give substantial weight to the fact that Mohamed has a plausible alibi defense. The master commissioner concluded that based on the evidence presented by both parties, it is an open question whether Mohamed is the perpetrator. That conclusion recognizes our limited role in this case when it comes to Mohamed's guilt or innocence: It is appropriate for us to consider the weight of the evidence against Mohamed, Crim.R. 46(C)(2) ; but we are not the finders of fact concerning his guilt. A jury must ultimately determine whether the state's evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohamed is guilty.
{¶ 14} We reject the sheriff's final argument because it asks us not to just recognize that there are factual disputes related to Mohamed's guilt, but to actually resolve them.
{¶ 15} Having reviewed the master commissioner's recommendation, completed an independent review of the record, and considered the sheriff's arguments, we hold that the master commissioner has properly stated the facts and applied the law. We therefore adopt the master commissioner's recommendation but with the following additional nonfinancial conditions: Mohamed shall be monitored electronically, he shall surrender his passport if he owns one, he will reside with his father in Columbus and nowhere else, he may travel for necessities and for reasons related to the care of his father, and he may not leave the state of Ohio. Mohamed's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted and his bail bond is reduced to $200,000, secured by the deposit of 10 percent of the amount of the bond in cash, a surety bond, or property as allowed by law. The other nonfinancial conditions of release imposed by the court of common pleas shall remain in place.
Writ granted.
Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.
{¶ 16} I join the per curiam opinion in full to ensure that petitioner Hassan Mohamed's bail is reduced to an amount that gives him a chance to be released from jail during the pretrial period. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that the financial condition of release is still unconstitutionally high and I am skeptical about the use of electronic monitoring.
{¶ 17} As noted in the master commissioner's report and recommendation:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DuBose v. McGuffey
...afford bail in the amount of $1, 500, 000 and that the state did not introduce evidence to rebut that assertion. Thus, unlike this court in Mohamed, the court of appeals did receive new evidence in this case. Instead, on the record before it, the court of appeals concluded that the bail amo......
-
DuBose v. McGuffey
...of appeals may receive new evidence and independently weigh the evidence to make its own bail determination. Mohamed v. Eckelberry , 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 5. This is not to say that every case warrants review. As with any action for habeas relief, the burden......
-
Dubose v. McGuffey
...to introduce evidence to prove his claim and then exercise its own discretion in imposing an appropriate bail amount." Mohamed v. Eckelberry , 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 5.{¶14} Thus, Mohamed suggests that our standard of review is de novo.1 See Hartman v. Schill......
-
Dubose v. McGuffey
...evidence to prove his claim and then exercise its own discretion in imposing an appropriate bail amount." Mohamed v. Eckelberry, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 5. {¶14} Thus, Mohamed suggests that our standard of review is de novo.[1] See Hartman v. Schilling, 160 Oh......