Court Opinion

ID: 9917135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 17:07:31.977099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:05.241554
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Oliver v. Pretel, 2024-Ohio-77.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

IN RE: SAMUEL OLIVER,                               :

                 Petitioner,                        :
                                                                  No. 113420
                 v.                                 :

HAROLD PRETEL, CUYAHOGA                             :
COUNTY SHERIFF,
                                                    :
                 Respondent.

                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: PETITION GRANTED
                 DATED: January 8, 2024

                                          Writ of Habeas Corpus
                                           Order No. 570636
                                           Motion No. 570200

                                              Appearances:

                 Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                 Erika B. Cunliffe and Sean M. Sweeney, Assistant Public
                 Defenders, for petitioner.

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistant
                 Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J.:

      {¶ 1}    On December 1, 2o23, the petitioner, Samuel Oliver, commenced this

habeas corpus action against the respondent, Sheriff Harold Pretel, to lower his

bond from $100,000 to $10,000. The petition attached the transcript from the trial

court bond hearing and Oliver’s trial court motion to reduce bond that contained

still pictures of the incident taken from the warehouse’s security camera. On

December 5, 2023, this court ordered the respondent to notify the victim of the

pendency of this habeas case, ordered the respondent and the victim to submit

responses by December 12, and allowed Oliver to file a response and any additional

evidence by December 15. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment

on December 5, 2023. Neither the victim nor Oliver made any further filings. For

the following reasons, this court issues the writ of habeas corpus and grants relief by

setting bond at $15,000, cash, surety, or 10 percent bond and orders compliance

with the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Supervised Release program and no

contact with the victim. The respondent’s motion for summary judgment is denied

as moot.

      {¶ 2}    On January 13, 2023, Oliver shot a coworker at the Amazon

Warehouse in Bedford Heights. The bullet entered the right buttock and exited

through the coworker’s left thigh. This wound caused him to be hospitalized and

undergo a number of surgeries. Oliver asserts that he shot in self-defense because

the coworker was aggressively moving toward him, as shown on security video.

After shooting the coworker, Oliver left the building, remained in the Cleveland area,
and found another job. He was arrested at that job on August 23, 2023. On

September 18, the grand jury indicted him on two counts of felonious assault with

one- and three-year firearm specifications.

      {¶ 3}   At his arraignment on September 21, 2023, the trial court set bond at

$25,000. On October 20, Oliver moved to reduce the bond to $10,000. He argued

the right to reasonable bond, his lack of criminal history, his work history up to the

time of his arrest, and his ties to his family and community. On October 30, 2023,

the trial court conducted a hearing on his motion to reduce bond.          Citing the

seriousness of the charges, a recent mass-shooting in Maine, and public perception,

the trial court raised the bond to $100,000.

      {¶ 4}   Oliver moved for reconsideration of that decision on November 15,

2023. When the trial court did not rule on the motion, he commenced this habeas

corpus action. He argues that he is the father of two children whom he has

supported through maintaining employment at various jobs. Furthermore, he has

no serious criminal record, has strong ties to the community, can assert self-defense,

but does not have the resources for a $100,000 bond. He might be able to assemble

the funds for a $10,000 bond, but never a $100,000 bond. That amount constitutes

a complete denial of bond. The respondent in his motion for summary judgment

partially agreed stating a bond of $25,000, but no less, would be a reasonable

amount.

      {¶ 5}   The principles governing habeas corpus in these matters are well

established. Under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions, “excessive bail
shall not be required.” If the offense is bailable, the right to reasonable bail is an

inviolable one which may not be infringed or denied. In re Gentry, 7 Ohio App.3d

143, 454 N.E.2d 987 (6th Dist.1982), and Lewis v. Telb, 26 Ohio App.3d 11, 497

N.E.2d 1376 (6th Dist.1985). The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the

accused at trial. Bland v. Holden, 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 257 N.E.2d 397 (1970),

and DuBose v. McGuffey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-8, 195 N.E.3d 951.

      {¶ 6}    In Ohio, the writ of habeas corpus protects the right to reasonable

bail. In re Gentry. A person charged with the commission of a bailable offense

cannot be required to furnish bail in an excessive or unreasonable amount. In re

Lonardo, 86 Ohio App. 289, 89 N.E.2d 502 (8th Dist.1949). Indeed, bail set at an

unreasonable amount violates the constitutional guarantees. Stack v. Boyle, 342

U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951). After weighing various factors, the court sets the

amount of bail within its sound discretion. “Whether a particular bail determination

is unconstitutionally excessive is a question of law appropriate for de novo

review.” DuBose at ¶ 15.

      {¶ 7}    As the Supreme Court stated in Stack, “This traditional right to

freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense and

serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction. Unless this right

to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after

centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.” Stack at 4-5. Thus, in a habeas

corpus action to contest the reasonableness of the bond, this court must determine

whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re Green, 101 Ohio App.3d 726, 656
N.E.2d 705 (8th Dist.1995), and Albert v. O’Malley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111631,

2022-Ohio-2688.

      {¶ 8}    In the present case, this court rules that a $100,000 bond is excessive

and an abuse of discretion. After weighing the seriousness of the charge, Oliver’s

ties to the community, his work history, his lack of a criminal record, his lack of

financial resources, and the evidence as shown by the attachments to the briefs,

including the possibility of self-defense, this court grants relief as follows: bail is set

at $15,000, cash, surety, or 10 percent bond. As requested by Oliver, he will comply

with the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Supervised Release program and have no

contact with the victim. Respondent to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs

the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry

upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

      {¶ 9}    The writ of habeas corpus is issued, and relief granted.

_______________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR