In re Oliver v. Pretel , 2024 Ohio 77 ( 2024 )

[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