Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate court reviewed the denial of William Brettin's application for a writ of habeas corpus, addressing the legality of a bail increase from $50,000 to $300,000 without a hearing. Initially set at $50,000, Brettin's bail was increased after the State filed 22 charges, including multiple counts of child molesting, and requested a higher bail based on an affidavit highlighting Brettin's potential risk to the community. The primary legal issue was whether such an increase necessitated a hearing under Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-5, which the appellate court agreed was required. The State argued for a different statutory approach, allowing ex parte bail determinations; however, the court found that the increase without a hearing was improper, referencing the defendant's right to a hearing as established in Vacendak v. State. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, ordering Brettin's release on the original bail amount until a proper hearing could ascertain the justification for the increased amount, thus safeguarding the procedural rights of the defendant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Defendant's Right to Bail Hearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling emphasized the defendant's right to a hearing on bail increases if the State must present clear and convincing evidence of a risk to public safety, as outlined in precedent and Indiana Code.
Reasoning: Under Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-5, the court must conduct a hearing if the State presents clear and convincing evidence of a risk to public safety.
Ex Parte Bail Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court clarified that while Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-4 allows ex parte determinations, such provisions do not override the requirement for a hearing when altering bail post-initial charges.
Reasoning: The State contends that the new bail was based on additional charges, thus falling under a different statute (Ind.Code Section 35-33-8-4) that permits ex parte bail determinations after charging information is filed.
Habeas Corpus and Bail Hearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court held that the denial of a hearing on a bail increase constitutes unlawful detention, warranting relief under a writ of habeas corpus.
Reasoning: The appellate court emphasizes that the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to assess the legality of custody, and since Brettin was not afforded a hearing on the bail increase, the court concludes that he is entitled to relief.
Requirement of Hearing for Bail Increasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that an increase in bail requires a hearing under Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-5, as the bail alteration constituted a modification of the previously set bail amount.
Reasoning: The key issue is whether the bail increase constituted an alteration of the previous amount, thereby requiring a hearing under Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-5.