Title: Ahmad v. Plummer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ahmad v. Plummer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3757.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3757 
AHMAD, APPELLANT, v. PLUMMER, SHERIFF, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ahmad v. Plummer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3757.] 
Habeas corpus — Claim of excessive bail — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2010-0448 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided August 18, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 23775. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Shafik Ahmad appeals from the judgment of the court of appeals 
denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the $3,000,000 
pretrial-release bail set by the court of common pleas.  For the following reasons, 
we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Ahmad argues that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ 
because it “appears as though the court of appeals agreed the bond was excessive, 
but felt bound by the trial court’s order because they could not find an abuse of 
discretion.”  We have previously recognized the “anomaly in original actions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
which are filed seeking habeas corpus on the grounds of excessive bail because 
the effect of such cases is an appeal from a decision of the trial court; yet, such 
cases are also considered as original actions so as to permit hearings and findings 
of fact.”  In re DeFronzo (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 271, 273, 3 O.O.3d 408, 361 
N.E.2d 448.  The court of appeals acknowledged the hybrid qualities of the 
proceeding by conducting a de novo hearing while also considering the evidence 
submitted to the court of common pleas: 
{¶ 3} “Upon review of the pleadings and hearing in the present matter, 
including the evidence presented at said hearing, this Court finds that Ahmad has 
failed to demonstrate that the $3,000,000 cash/surety bond imposed by the 
common pleas court is excessive.  Although this Court may have set bail at a 
lower amount, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in 
setting bail in the amount of $3,000,000 cash/surety.” 
{¶ 4} The court did not err in its holding.  Although the court of appeals 
opined that it may have set a lower amount for the bail, the court also specifically 
held that based on its de novo review of the habeas corpus claim, Ahmad failed to 
demonstrate that the pretrial bail is excessive.  See Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio 
St.3d 323, 326, 744 N.E.2d 763 (“the burden of proof in a case alleging excessive 
bail is, as in other habeas corpus cases, on the petitioner”). 
{¶ 5} Nor did the court of appeals abuse its discretion.  Under Crim.R. 
46(C), “[i]n determining the types, amounts, and conditions of bail, the court shall 
consider all relevant information, including but not limited to: 
{¶ 6} “(1) The nature and circumstances of the crime charged, and 
specifically whether the defendant used or had access to a weapon; 
{¶ 7} “(2) The weight of the evidence against the defendant; 
{¶ 8} “(3) The confirmation of the defendant’s identity; 
{¶ 9} “(4) The defendant’s family ties, employment, financial resources, 
character, mental condition, length of residence in the community, jurisdiction of 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
residence, record of convictions, record of appearance at court proceedings or of 
flight to avoid prosecution. 
{¶ 10} “(5) Whether the defendant is on probation, a community control 
sanction, parole, post-release control, bail, or under a court protection order.” 
{¶ 11} The prosecuting attorney had recommended a $10,000,000 bond 
and, in his recommendation, had summarized certain facts, including the serious 
nature and circumstances of the charge of conspiracy to commit murder that 
Ahmad faces, the substantial evidence against him, and the manifest confirmation 
of his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged: 
{¶ 12} “Defendant personally sought to hire a hit-man to kill his ex-wife; 
evidence of his criminal involvement includes, but is not limited to, arranging and 
attending multiple meetings to hire a hit-man to kill his ex-wife, obtaining money 
to pay a hit-man to kill his ex-wife, disbursing money as a down payment to a hit-
man to kill his ex-wife, providing photographs and directions to assist the hit-man 
in locating his ex-wife for the purpose of killing her. 
{¶ 13} “Defendant is recorded on multiple audio recordings making 
arrangements to hire a hit-man to kill his ex-wife.” 
{¶ 14} Other evidence, both testimonial and documentary, submitted in 
the proceedings below confirmed the prosecutor’s summary. 
{¶ 15} The prosecutor also indicated that because of “[Ahmad’s] 
employment as a physician, [he] has access to large sums of money; furthermore, 
[his] family members are also physicians.”  Ahmad’s current wife requested in a 
letter to the common pleas court judge that the $3,000,000 bond not be lowered 
because that amount was “not enough for his family’s circumstances” and his 
brother had the money to bail him out.  Ahmad never credibly rebutted the 
contention that he could afford to pay the bond. 
{¶ 16} Moreover, Ahmad is under two domestic-violence protection 
orders – one issued on behalf of his ex-wife and one issued on behalf of his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
current wife.  Ahmad’s current wife further stated that she feared that if the 
amount of bail were reduced, Ahmad would – as he had previously threatened – 
kill her and her youngest son. 
{¶ 17} Under these circumstances, the court of appeals did not abuse its 
discretion in determining that the $3,000,000 bail was not excessive.  Ahmad is 
charged with a serious crime and faces a potentially lengthy sentence if convicted 
based on the substantial evidence against him.  Thus, “ ‘the incentive to abscond 
is greater and the amount must be such as to discourage the accused from 
absconding.’ ”  State v. Nields (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 18, 752 N.E.2d 859, 
quoting Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 239, 50 O.O.2d 477, 257 
N.E.2d 397. 
{¶ 18} Therefore, we affirm the judgment denying the writ of habeas 
corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
_______________ 
 
Rion, Rion & Rion, L.P.A., Inc., and John H. Rion, for appellant. 
 
Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________