Court Opinion

ID: 9818485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:48:43.500165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:24.659761
License: Public Domain

JACK CARTER, Justice,
dissenting.
The statute requires that four objective factors be considered in setting bail; all of them indicate that this bail setting is unreasonable.
1.Reasonable assurance of compliance — McLendon apparently complied with a pretrial bond set at $3,000.00 and appeared so that her case was processed. If we draw any conclusion from this information, it would be that her history does not support a finding that such a substantial bail was required to give reasonable assurance of her compliance.
2. Nature of the offense — This is the lowest level felony offense (state jail) and the maximum punishment is two years’ incarceration. The conviction was for her personal possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance.
3. Ability to make bond — She is indigent, which means she has little or no assets or resources from which to provide funds for bail.
4. Future safety — This offense for possession of a drug was a nonviolent offense. There is no evidence that she is a threat to the safety of the community.
Vague references to “a pending case” does not establish a criminal history. Perhaps the trial court had some information that is undisclosed that would suggest that such a substantial bond was now required; if so, that could have been produced had a hearing been conducted. Based on the record before us, a bail of $50,000.00 in this instance is unreasonable. In view of the circumstances presented, a reasonable bail setting should not exceed $10,000.00.
I respectfully dissent.