Louis Shane Colemon v. State ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                SECOND DIVISION
    MILLER, P. J.,
    HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS
    COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN
    THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.
    November 16, 2021
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A21A1259. COLEMON v. THE STATE.
    MILLER, Presiding Judge.
    In this interlocutory appeal, Louis Shane Colemon appeals from the trial
    court’s order denying his motion to reduce bond. On appeal, Colemon contends that
    the trial court failed to grant him an appropriate bond within his financial means,
    which has resulted in cruel and unusual pre-trial punishment based on his poverty.
    Because the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in setting the bond amount,
    we affirm.
    “[I]n all cases the amount of bail assessed is within the sole discretion of the
    trial court and will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (Citation
    omitted.) Mullinax v. State, 
    271 Ga. 112
     (2) (515 SE2d 839) (1999).
    Colemon was arrested in March 2019 in connection with allegations of
    physical abuse of his four-month-old son that led to a heart injury, rib fractures,
    malnutrition, and unresponsiveness. Two months after his arrest, Colemon was
    indicted on 35 charges, including criminal attempt to commit murder and numerous
    counts of aggravated battery (family violence), aggravated assault, and cruelty to
    children in the first degree.
    In May 2019, the trial court denied bond to Colemon, finding him to be a flight
    risk in light of the gravity of the charges and the punishment he faces. The trial court
    also determined that Colemon posed a risk to the community, noting his two
    convictions for battery and a conviction for armed robbery. After another hearing in
    December 2019, the trial court granted Colemon bond in the amount of $150,000,
    observing that Colemon had been subject to a “lengthy pretrial detention,” but
    maintaining its previous concerns from the May hearing. The trial court later reduced
    the bond to $100,000, before denying Colemon’s subsequent motions to reduce bond.
    After the trial court again declined to reduce the bond in January 2021,1 the court
    granted Colemon’s petition for certificate of immediate review. We granted
    1
    In the written order, the trial court cited to its reasoning and analyses which
    were entered on the record as part of its previous denial orders.
    2
    Colemon’s application for interlocutory appeal from the January 2021 order, and this
    appeal ensued.
    In his sole enumeration of error, Colemon argues that the trial court failed to
    grant him an appropriate bond within his financial means, which has resulted in cruel
    and unusual pretrial punishment solely based on his poverty. Colemon centers his
    argument on the following two claims: (1) the trial court repeatedly ignored evidence
    and proffers showing his indigence and inability to post the bond; and (2) the bond
    is excessive because he demonstrated that the bond contained conditions that would
    ensure his return to court but he is nevertheless unable to post the bond due to
    indigence. Colemon has failed to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion
    in setting the bond.
    Excessive bail is prohibited by the Georgia Constitution (Ga.
    Const.1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVII) and the Eighth Amendment to the
    U. S. Constitution. For purposes of the Eighth Amendment, excessive
    bail is defined as bail set at an amount higher than an amount reasonably
    calculated to insure the presence of the defendant. When fixing bail in
    Georgia, a trial judge’s foremost consideration is the probability that the
    accused, if freed, will appear at trial and to a lesser extent the accused’s
    ability to pay, the seriousness of the offense, and the accused’s character
    and reputation. A defendant who seeks release on bail has the burden of
    showing roots in the community, that the defendant does not pose a
    3
    significant risk of fleeing, threatening the community, committing
    another crime, or intimidating a witness.
    (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphases supplied.) Mullinax, 
    supra,
     
    271 Ga. at 112
     (2).
    First, the trial court evidently considered Colemon’s ability to pay the $100,000
    bond. Colemon represented to the court that his family has property valued at
    $95,000, which they can post against the bond. In May 2020, the trial court stated of
    the $100,000 bond, “I understand [Colemon] has not posted that bond. I also
    understand that bond is not excessive merely because it’s unaffordable.” During the
    September 2020 hearing, the trial court questioned Colemon’s counsel about the
    family’s property, about whether Colemon’s family members would be able to take
    a loan against the property to post the bond, and about the amount of money that
    would be required to post the bond through a bonding company. It is therefore
    apparent that the trial court accounted for Colemon’s financial ability, and we reject
    his contention to the contrary.
    Colemon also asserts that the bond is necessarily excessive because the trial
    court imposed various conditions to ensure his presence at trial and he is nevertheless
    unable to afford the bond. But “the amount of a bond as reasonable or excessive is not
    4
    susceptible to objective measurement under bright line rules. Rather, it results upon
    a consideration of a range of factors.” Vanegas v. State, 
    249 Ga. App. 76
    , 78 (2) (547
    SE2d 718) (2001). “The gist of the problem confronting a court in setting the amount
    of bail is to place the amount high enough to reasonably assure the presence of the
    defendant when it is required, and at the same time to avoid a figure higher than that
    reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose, and therefore excessive.” Jones v.
    Grimes, 
    219 Ga. 585
    , 587 (2) (134 SE2d 790) (1964).
    Here, the bond amount “reflects the trial judge’s concern that the defendant’s
    presence at trial be secured.” Mayfield v. State, 
    198 Ga. App. 252
    , 253 (401 SE2d
    297) (1990). The September 2020 order shows that the trial court considered
    Colemon’s “establishment in the community to ensure that he will appear for trial.”
    In determining the amount of bond necessary for this foremost purpose, the trial court
    found that Colemon had lived in four different counties; that he had not established
    ownership of a home in which he had an interest; that he did not have long-term
    employment; and that there had been no evidence that he had children who resided
    with him and were being schooled in the area. The trial court also considered that
    Colemon faces “very serious charges” and severe punishment if convicted and that
    5
    he has previously been convicted of a violent offense.2 Ultimately, the trial court
    ruled that the likelihood that Colemon would appear for trial required bond in the
    amount of $100,000 and that a lesser amount would not reasonably assure Colemon’s
    presence.
    Certainly, we are not unmindful of the length of Colemon’s pretrial detention
    and the presumption of his innocence. The record before us, however, shows that the
    trial court considered both of these factors, applied the Mullinax framework to the
    specific circumstances of this case, and rendered a reasoned decision regarding the
    bond amount. Accordingly, the bond was not so excessive as to constitute a clear
    abuse of discretion. See Hernandez v. State, 
    294 Ga. App. 289
    , 290 (669 SE2d 434)
    (2008) (where the trial court was concerned that the defendant posed a significant risk
    of fleeing, a million-dollar bond in connection with a drug trafficking operation was
    not unlawfully excessive); Mayfield, supra, 198 Ga. App. at 253 (where the trial judge
    weighed the defendant’s length of detention and residency in the community against
    the seriousness and consequences of the charges, $100,000 bond for charges of two
    cocaine sales was not unlawfully excessive). See also Spence v. State, 
    252 Ga. 338
    ,
    341 (2) (b) (313 SE2d 475) (1984) (no abuse of discretion where the trial court set
    2
    We note that these findings find some support in the record.
    6
    $90,000 bond for three counts of theft). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order
    denying Colemon’s motion to reduce bond.
    Judgment affirmed. Hodges and Pipkin, JJ., concur.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A21A1259

Filed Date: 11/19/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/19/2021