Legal Opinion

State v. Holmes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1991No. 89-1368PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Holmes entered Richland County without prior approval of the trial court and, hence, violated the third condition of his release. The state of Ohio, appellee, suggests that Holmes’s noncompliance with the condition of his release is a breach of condition of the bail bond and, hence, the forfeiture of a portion of the bond was proper under Crim. R. 46(M).

We disagree. Crim. R. 46(M)2 provides that upon a breach of condition of a bond, the court must declare a forfeiture of the bail. However, Crim. R. 46(M) also requires that forfeiture proceedings be enforced “* * * as provided by law.”…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. HughesOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. LottOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Houser v. ManningDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  3. State v. SliderOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. State v. DyeOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. State v. LeeOhio Court of Appeals · 2012

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API