GILLISPIE v. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, 3:09-cv-471. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120424c34
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR BOND MODIFICATION MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Modify Terms of Release in Light of New Decision by Ohio Second District Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 87). When this Court granted Petitioner a conditional writ, it stayed that judgment pending appeal and released Petitioner on a bond with substantial conditions in recognition of the substantial interest the State of Ohio
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR BOND MODIFICATION MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Modify Terms of Release in Light of New Decision by Ohio Second District Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 87). When this Court granted Petitioner a conditional writ, it stayed that judgment pending appeal and released Petitioner on a bond with substantial conditions in recognition of the substantial interest the State of Ohio h..
More
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR BOND MODIFICATION
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Modify Terms of Release in Light of New Decision by Ohio Second District Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 87).
When this Court granted Petitioner a conditional writ, it stayed that judgment pending appeal and released Petitioner on a bond with substantial conditions in recognition of the substantial interest the State of Ohio had in the conviction it had obtained once and re-obtained on a second trial. However, that interest is substantially decreased by the decision granting a new trial in State v. Gillispie, No. 24456, 2012 Ohio 1656, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1453 (Ohio App. 2nd Dist. Apr. 13, 2012). Unless the Ohio Supreme Court reinstates that judgment of conviction, the State's interest in the judgment will be completely extinguished. Moreover, Pretrial Services reports that Petitioner has been a model client on bond. The Court further notes that the instant Motion was filed April 16, 2012, and has drawn no opposition from the State.
Therefore the Motion is granted and Petitioner's bond in this Court is modified to include only the required general conditions, to wit, that Petitioner appear whenever required in this case and abide by the law pending final disposition.
Source: Leagle
