Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
of Habeas Corpus Motion No. 516589 Order No. 517335
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER Mark A. Stanton Cuyahoga County
Public Defender By: John T. Martin Assistant Public Defender
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Carl Mazzone Frank Romeo Zeleznikar
Assistant County Prosecutors
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, JUDGE.
Yohann Palmer-Tesema has commenced this habeas corpus action
against Clifford Pinkney, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff
("Sheriff Pinkney"). Palmer-Tesema alleges that his
$250, 000 pretrial bail is excessive and unreasonable and
seeks a reduction in the amount of bail with additional
conditions. Pinkney has filed a motion for summary judgment
that is denied for the following reasons.
On February 22, 2018, Palmer-Tesema appeared in the Rocky
River Municipal Court following his arrest for the offense of
rape. The Rocky River Municipal Court set bail in the amount
of $250, 000, cash or surety, and ordered that Palmer-Tesema
be bound over to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.
On March 20, 2018, Palmer-Tesema was indicted, in State
v. Palmer-Tesema, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-626287, for
six counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)) with sexually
violent predator specifications (R.C. 2941.148(A)), and three
counts of kidnaping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(4)) with sexual
motivation specifications (R.C. 2941.147(A)) and sexually
violent predator specifications (R.C. 2941.148(A)). The nine
counts allege three separate victims.
On March 23, 2018, Palmer-Tesema was arraigned with bail
continued in the amount of $250, 000 with further conditions
of no contact with the victims and a continuance of a
temporary protection order. On April 2, 2018, the trial court
denied Palmer-Tesema's first request for bail reduction.
On April 5, 2018, the trial court denied Palmer-Tesema's
second request for bail reduction. On April 8, 2018,
Palmer-Tesema filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On April 11, 2018, Sheriff Pinkney filed a Civ.R. 56(C)
motion for summary judgment. On April 18, 2018, Palmer-Tesema
filed a brief in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. On April 25, 2018, the writ issued, and on May 3,
2018, this court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard
the arguments of counsel.
For the following reasons, we deny Sheriff Pinkney's
motion for summary judgment and find that bail in the amount
of $250, 000 is excessive.
The principles governing habeas corpus are well settled under
the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution:
"excessive bail shall not be required." If a
charged offense is bailable, the right to reasonable bail may
not be infringed or denied. Lewis v. Telb, 26 Ohio
App.3d 11, 497 N.E.2d 1376 (6th Dist.1985); In re
Gentry, 7 Ohio App.3d 143, 454 N.E.2d 987 (6th
Dist.1982). The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance
of the defendant at trial. Bland v. Holden, 21 Ohio
St.2d 238, 257 N.E.2d 397 (1970). 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
In determining what is reasonable bail, a trial court must
apply the factors contained within Crim.R. 46 and consider
all relevant information, including but not limited to, the
nature and circumstances of the charged offense; the weight
of the evidence; confirmation of the defendant's
identity; the defendant's history of flight or failure to
appear at court proceedings; ties to the community, including
his family, financial resources and employment; character and
mental condition; record of conviction; and whether the
defendant is on probation, community control sanction,
parole, or postrelease control. The trial court, after
weighing these factors, sets the amount of bail. Hardy v.
McFaul, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84495, 2004-Ohio-2694;
State v. Marte, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69587, 1996
Ohio App. LEXIS 2193 (May 23, 1996).
An action in habeas corpus, that involves a claim of
excessive bail, requires a hybrid analysis ...