Harris v. Paden

[Cite as Harris v. Paden, 2016-Ohio-7753.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAD W. HARRIS JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J.
Petitioner Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 16 CA 000008
JEFFREY D. PADEN, SHERIFF
Respondent OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Denied
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 14, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
JACK BLAKESLEE DANIEL G. PADDEN
P. O. BOX 284 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
421 West Street 139 West Eighth Street, P.O. Box 640
Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Cambridge, Ohio 443725-0640
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 000008 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Chad Harris, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
alleging unlawful detention based upon an excessive bond. Respondent has filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion to
dismiss.
{¶2} The Petition is devoid of any facts relative to the offense for which Petitioner
is committed. The Petition fails to state what charges are pending or what degree the
offenses are. Without this information, the Court is unable to make a proper analysis of
the bond based upon the Petition alone.
{¶3} Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss stating Petitioner is charged with
Involuntary Manslaughter, a felony of the first degree, Corrupting Another with Drugs, a
felony of the second degree, and Trafficking in Heroin, a felony of the fifth degree.
{¶4} The Supreme Court has explained the procedure in excessive bail habeas
corpus cases,
In general, persons accused of crimes are bailable by sufficient
sureties, and “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required.” Section 9, Article I,
Ohio Constitution. Habeas corpus is the proper remedy to raise the claim of
excessive bail in pretrial-release cases. See State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene
(1998), 84 Ohio St. 3d 165, 168, 702 N.E.2d 423, 425, and cases cited
therein.
In habeas corpus cases, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to
establish his right to release. Halleck v. Koloski (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 76, 77,
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 000008 3
33 O.O.2d 441, 441–442, 212 N.E.2d 601, 602; Yarbrough v. Maxwell
(1963), 174 Ohio St. 287, 288, 22 O.O.2d 341, 342, 189 N.E.2d 136, 137.
More specifically, in a habeas corpus proceeding, “where the return
sets forth a justification for the detention of the petitioner, the burden of proof
is on the petitioner to establish his right to release.” Id. at 288, 22 O.O.2d at
342, 189 N.E.2d at 137. In satisfying this burden of proof, the petitioner must
first introduce evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity that
attaches to all court proceedings. Id. at 288, 22 O.O.2d at 342, 189 N.E.2d
at 137.
Thus, in habeas corpus actions, “the state makes a prima facie case
by showing by what authority it holds the prisoner” and the “burden of
proceeding then shifts to the prisoner to introduce facts which would justify
the granting of bail.” See, e.g., Muller v. Bridges (1966), 280 Ala. 169, 170,
190 So. 2d 722, 723.
{¶5} Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St. 3d 323, 325, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763, 767.
{¶6} Here, Respondent has provided a return providing authority upon which it
holds Petitioner. Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss arguing the trial court’s entry
sufficiently justifies the bond in this case. In turn, Petitioner has presented no evidence
Guernsey County, Case No. 16 CA 000008 4
which would justify granting bail. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof,
therefore, request for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
JWW/d 1028