Title: Hardy v. McFaul

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Hardy v. McFaul, 103 Ohio St.3d 408, 2004-Ohio-5467.] 
 
 
HARDY, APPELLANT, v. MCFAUL, SHERIFF, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Hardy v. McFaul, 103 Ohio St.3d 408, 2004-Ohio-5467.] 
Criminal procedure — Pretrial bond on remand for retrial — Increase 
permissible based on evidence from first trial — Writ of habeas corpus 
denied. 
(No. 2004-0922 — Submitted September 15, 2004 — Decided October 27, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 84495,  
2004-Ohio-2694. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In State v. Hardy, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court case 
No. CR-429576, appellant, Christopher Hardy, was charged with two counts of 
rape, two counts of kidnapping, and one count each of abduction, felonious 
assault, and domestic violence.  At his arraignment, the trial court set a $10,000 
bond, which he posted.  After a jury trial, Hardy was convicted of rape, 
kidnapping, and domestic violence.  The trial court sentenced Hardy to five years 
in prison. 
{¶2} 
On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause 
for a new trial because the trial court had responded to jury questions outside of 
Hardy’s presence.  State v. Hardy, Cuyahoga App. No. 82620, 2004-Ohio-56, 
2004 WL 35941.  The court of appeals expressly found, however, that evidence 
existed to support the kidnapping conviction and that Hardy did not address the 
sufficiency of the evidence relating to the other rape charge, on which he was 
found guilty.  Id. at ¶ 23-24. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Hardy filed a new motion for bond, and on April 5, 2004, the trial 
court set bond at “$75,000.00 for reasons given on the oral record after oral 
hearing had on the oral record.” 
{¶4} 
On April 13, 2004, Hardy filed a petition in the Court of Appeals 
for Cuyahoga County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga 
County Sheriff Gerald T. McFaul, to release him from jail on his original $10,000 
bond or on personal bond pending retrial.  Hardy claimed that the $75,000 bond 
was excessive.  The sheriff moved to dismiss the petition.  On May 27, 2004, the 
court of appeals granted the sheriff’s motion and dismissed Hardy’s petition. 
{¶5} 
On appeal, Hardy asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 
{¶6} 
In order to avoid dismissal, Hardy had to state with particularity 
the extraordinary circumstances entitling him to habeas corpus relief.  Hammond 
v. Dallman (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 666, 668, 590 N.E.2d 744.  As the court of 
appeals determined, however, Hardy’s allegations were insufficient to withstand 
dismissal: 
{¶7} 
“In the present case, this court concludes that a $75,000 bond is not 
an abuse of discretion.  Rape, kidnapping, and domestic violence are very serious 
offenses.  The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Bail Investigation 
Guidelines provide that the appropriate range for bail in rape cases is $5,000 to 
$100,000.  Thus, a $75,000 bail is within the suggested range.  Furthermore, there 
is no doubt concerning the petitioner’s identification, and more importantly, the 
evidence weighs heavily against him.  The trial completely developed the 
evidence.  Knowing that the evidence was strong enough to convince a jury of 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and knowing the certainty of a five-year prison 
sentence increases the likelihood of flight.  Similarly, the judge also fully knows 
the incriminating nature of the evidence and has had an excellent opportunity to 
observe and learn the petitioner’s nature and character.  Therefore, substantially 
January Term, 2004 
3 
increasing the amount of bail after conviction, on remand for new trial, and within 
the suggested guidelines for the serious offense of rape, was not an abuse of 
discretion.”  Hardy v. McFaul, Cuyahoga App. No. 84495, 2004-Ohio-2694, 2004 
WL 1171879, ¶ 6. 
{¶8} 
The trial court was authorized to increase the amount of Hardy’s 
bail, and in making its decision, it could properly consider the nature and 
circumstances of the crimes charged, the weight of the evidence against him, and 
the evidence confirming his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes.  Crim.R. 
46(C)(1), (2), and (3);  Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 
763.  The first trial revealed strong evidence on all of these factors. 
{¶9} 
Moreover, Hardy’s reliance on evidence from his trial that was not 
before the court of appeals in the habeas corpus proceeding is misplaced.  “ ‘A 
reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not a part of 
the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new 
matter.’ ”  State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 
728, 730, 654 N.E.2d 1254, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 8 
O.O.3d 405, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶10} Finally, although Hardy attached a copy of the trial court’s entry 
setting the $75,000 bond, he did not include a copy of the transcript of the oral 
hearing specified in the trial court’s entry as including the “reasons” for the bond 
amount.  Cf. Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 35, 39, 
671 N.E.2d 1 (in absence of submission of hearing transcript, court presumes the 
regularity of the board’s determination). 
{¶11} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Paul Mancino Jr., for appellant. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Amy E. 
Venesile, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________