|
|
|
| State |
|
The case of Shanbour v. Black
is unpublished, but very instructive on one of the most pressing and important issues facing your client: his freedom pending the trial that you plan to win! This case discusses the legal landscape of attacking bail decisions pre-trial, denial of bail, and what constitutes a "violent" crime for purposes of bail.
Shanbour was charged with Stalking, Blackmail, and attempted Extortion. District Court denied bail. Shanbour proceeded via Writ of Habeas Corpus to COCA for an order directing the District Court to establish bail. COCA granted the writ and wrote a very good opinion that for some reason it decided not to publish.
First, COCA re-affirmed that an original proceeding writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle to challenge pre-trial bail decisions.
Next, the opinion discussed the contours of the Brill case regarding the denial of bail and the requirements necessary for a District Court to deny bail altogether. The District Court failed to follow these guidelines--particularly by not preparing written findings of fact and a statement of reasons for the detention.
Finally, the opinion discusses the legal test for when an accused is entitled to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution which allows denial of bail for "violent" offenses, but does not list which offenses are considered "violent." The Court established the legal test for what constitutes a "violent" offense and concluded that Stalking, Blackmail, and Attempted Extortion are not "violent" offenses, even though they are crimes that may lead to violence; therefore, Shanbour was entitled to a reasonable bail.
|
|
Jermaine Darnell Neugent v. The Honorable Twyla Mason-Gray
No. HB-2008-177 (Okl.Cr., March 19, 2008): Bail; State: Neugent was charged in Oklahoma County with several drug counts. Bong was set at $20,000.00 and posted by Neugent. He failed to appear at a PHC and his bond was doubled. He was later arrested and returned to custody of the Sheriff. He appeared before Judge Hall who again set the bond at $40,000.00 and this was posted by Neugent. Thereafter the State filed a motion for detention without bond and a hearing was set before Judge Gray who granted the motion. In this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court granted the writ and directed Judge Gray to reinstate the $40,000.00 bond on the basis that neither the State's motion for detention nor Judge Gray's findings at the Brill hearing offered any new evidence known to the State since the bond was set by Judge Hall; thus, the procedural requirements of Brill were not met. NOTE: The Court directed Judge Gray, or her representative, to file a response but none was filed. Also, defense counsel, Cindy Viol, filed a good brief that raised quite a few issues in this case. A copy of the brief can be found HERE. Although the Court granted relief on one ground, the brief might give you some other ideas if this issue comes up in one of your cases.
|
|
|
|
