ILNews

COA orders judge grant motion for bail bond reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the severity of the 13 charges against a Knox County man for his role in several home invasions supports setting his bond at $25,000 cash only, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court should have allowed him to post a percentage of that to bond out.

Tommi Emerson Winn was arrested and charged with 13 counts of burglary. He and two other men broke into homes, stole jewelry and pawned some of it. They also converted stolen change into bills at a Wal-Mart. The trial court set his bond at $25,000 cash and denied Winn’s motion to reduce so he could post 10 percent of that to secure his release from jail.

Winn argued – and others testified in support – that he was not a flight risk, lived in Knox County most of his life, and had not failed to appear for a court appearance.

When setting the amount of bond under Indiana Code 35-33-8-4(b), subsection 7, the nature and gravity of the offense and potential penalty faced, is enough to warrant a refusal to reduce the amount of bail, the Court of Appeals pointed out. However, the other nine subsections, including family ties and relationships and source of funds or property to be used to post bail, weigh in Winn’s favor.

The record shows that Winn could not post the entire $25,000 in cash, so by denying his motion, the trial judge condemned him to jail pending trial without articulating why, Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote in Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana, 42A04-1201-CR-49. The judge used the words “cash only” but didn’t give his reasoning for the limitation.

Darden and Judge Ezra Friedlander ordered the trial judge to grant Winn’s motion. Judge Elaine Brown concurred in result, noting that the judge should also consider the use of real estate or posting a real estate bond, as allowed under I.C. 35-33-8-3.2.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT