Legal Opinion
State v. Fusik, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2005)
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 8, 2005No. 04CA28UnpublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} Paul Fusik appeals his conviction for Failure to Appear, arguing that the State of Ohio failed to prove that he was released on his "own recognizance." Fusik contends that he was released on a cash bond and, therefore, the court may forfeit the posted bond but may not convict him under R.C. 2937.99. The State responds that Fusik was released on both a cash bond and on his "own recognizance" because he was only required to post 10% of the total bond amount. We disagree with the State. Although a bond can be both an "own recognizance" and a cash bond, Fusik was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. Green, 2008-A-0009 (9-12-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. LeonardOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. PearsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2021