Court Opinion

ID: 9607888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:02:51.286377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:41.246422
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
Sometimes the simplest cases seem to create some of the most complicated legal problems. This, obviously, is one of those types of cases.
Appellant herein was convicted of six separate violations of bail jumping. The appellant was charged with five felony counts in Case CF-92-216 and a separate felony account in Case No. CF-92-275. Bond was set at $5,000 per count on the first charge and the same amount in the second case. Arraignment on both eases was set for a date certain; on that date defendant failed to appear; the matters were reset for one day later; again, the defendant failed to appear. A bench warrant was issued and the bond forfeited.
It is rather unusual that there have not been numerous eases throughout the United States on this issue. This is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma, at least as to the number of times a person may be charged with bail jumping. I have found three cases from other states that seem to be uniform in their application of the law. Although there are some differences, generally the cases hinge on the fact that you would not have multiple charges under the double jeopardy *818theory unless different facts or elements would have to be proven. Here, different elements would have to be proven in only two cases. I would therefor hold that there were only two offenses. One would be for bail jumping in CF-92-216 and one for bail jumping in Case CF-92-275. State v. Richter, 189 Wis.2d 105, 525 N.W.2d 168 (App.1994); People v. Albarran, 40 Ill.App.3d 344, 352 N.E.2d 379 (1976); McGee v. State, 438 So.2d 127 (Fla.App.1 Dist.1983).