(A) Bail of any type that is deposited under section 2937.011 or sections 2937.22 to 2937.45 of the Revised Code by a person other than the accused shall be discharged and released, and sureties on recognizances shall be released, in any of the following ways:
(1) When a surety on a recognizance or the depositor of cash or securities as bail for an accused desires to surrender the accused before the appearance date, the surety is discharged from further responsibility or the deposit is redeemed in either of the following ways:
(a) By delivery of the accused into open court;
(b) When, on the written request of the surety or depositor, the clerk of the court to which recognizance is returnable or in which deposit is made issues to the sheriff a warrant for the arrest of the accused and the sheriff indicates on the return that the sheriff holds the accused in the sheriff's jail.
(2) By appearance of the accused in accordance with the terms of the recognizance or deposit and the entry of judgment by the court or magistrate;
(3) By payment into court, after default, of the sum fixed in the recognizance or the sum fixed in the order of forfeiture, if it is less.
(B) When cash or securities have been deposited as bail by a person other than the accused and the bail is discharged and released pursuant to division (A) of this section, or when property has been pledged by a surety on recognizance and the surety on recognizance has been released pursuant to division (A) of this section, the court shall not deduct any amount from the cash or securities or declare forfeited and levy or execute against pledged property. The court shall not apply any of the deposited cash or securities toward, or declare forfeited and levy or execute against property pledged for a recognizance for, the satisfaction of any penalty or fine, and court costs, assessed against the accused upon the accused's conviction or guilty plea, except upon express approval of the person who deposited the cash or securities or the surety.
(C) Bail of any type that is deposited under section 2937.011 or sections 2937.22 to 2937.45 of the Revised Code by an accused shall be discharged and released to the accused, and property pledged by an accused for a recognizance shall be discharged, upon the appearance of the accused in accordance with the terms of the recognizance or deposit and the entry of judgment by the court or magistrate, except that, if the defendant is not indigent, the court may apply deposited bail toward the satisfaction of a penalty or fine, and court costs, assessed against the accused upon the accused's conviction or guilty plea, and may declare forfeited and levy or execute against pledged property for the satisfaction of a penalty or fine, and court costs, assessed against the accused upon the accused's conviction or guilty plea.
State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus, 784 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 9דR.C. 2937.40. It is undisputed that both Kinney and Cary Young made timely court appearances.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023-Ohio-1636, 226 N.E.3d 911. · cites it 18ד] Habeas corpus—Bond revocation—Pretrial release on bail—R.C. 2937.40—R.C. 2937.222—Crim.R. 46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2022-Ohio-4534. · cites it 13דR.C. 2937.40 provides one mechanism for a bondsman to discharge its duties and obligations.”
State v. Lee, 2012-Ohio-4329. · cites it 6ד46 and R.C. 2937.40. State v. Hopings, 6th Dist.”
State v. Dye, 2018-Ohio-4551, 122 N.E.3d 678. · cites it 4ד17 CA 00045 7 and the court may declare a forfeiture of the bond and thereafter execute upon it unless the surety can be exonerated as provided by law.”
State v. Harshman, 806 N.E.2d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2004). · cites it 8דFurther, he maintains that he was indigent, and, therefore, R.C. 2937.40 prohibits a court from applying bail money posted by him to his restitution and costs.”
State v. Guzman, 2020-Ohio-539, 152 N.E.3d 412. · cites it 4ד{¶21} R.C. 2937.40 provides for the release of bail and sureties.”
State ex rel. Baker v. Troutman, 553 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 2דRespondents further argue that they owe no duty to relator Shury because R.C. 2937.40(B) states, or at least implies, that cash or security deposits may be retained with consent of the surety: *273 “* * * The court shall not apply any of the deposited cash or securities toward,…”
State v. Lefever, 632 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). · cites it 3דThe court ordered the bond returned to Lonnie pursuant to R.C. 2937.40, finding that the receipt for the cash posting in municipal court was issued in his name.”
State v. Shanklin, 2014-Ohio-5624. · cites it 2ד{¶25} We also note that Shanklin appears to argue that his $100,000 bail forfeiture should have been applied toward his restitution and court costs under R.C. 2937.40. Specifically, Shanklin avers, “It is unclear from the record if the court applied any of the forfeited bail…”
State v. Slider, 919 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2009). · cites it 2דAfter determining that R.C. 2937.40 did not authorize appellant’s release based upon the facts before it, as requested by A-l Bail Bonds, the trial court denied appellant’s motion.”
State v. Hughes, 501 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio 1986). “These defenses are contained in R.C. 2937.40(A), which provides as follows: “Bail of any type that is deposited under sections 2937.”
State v. Hughes, 501 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio 1986). “These defenses are contained in R.C. 2937.40(A), which provides as follows: “Bail of any type that is deposited under sections 2937.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023-Ohio-1636, 226 N.E.3d 911. “] Habeas corpus—Bond revocation—Pretrial release on bail—R.C. 2937.40—R.C. 2937.222—Crim.R. 46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.”
State v. Shanklin, 2014-Ohio-5624. “{¶25} We also note that Shanklin appears to argue that his $100,000 bail forfeiture should have been applied toward his restitution and court costs under R.C. 2937.40. Specifically, Shanklin avers, “It is unclear from the record if the court applied any of the forfeited bail…”
State v. Guzman, 2020-Ohio-539, 152 N.E.3d 412. “{¶21} R.C. 2937.40 provides for the release of bail and sureties.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023-Ohio-1636, 226 N.E.3d 911. “] Habeas corpus—Bond revocation—Pretrial release on bail—R.C. 2937.40—R.C. 2937.222—Crim.R. 46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.40(A)(1)(b): 4 cases
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2022-Ohio-4534. “R.C. 2937.40 provides one mechanism for a bondsman to discharge its duties and obligations.”
State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 2023-Ohio-1636, 226 N.E.3d 911. “] Habeas corpus—Bond revocation—Pretrial release on bail—R.C. 2937.40—R.C. 2937.222—Crim.R. 46—Habeas corpus is not the proper action by which to challenge a trial court’s denial of bail under R.”
State v. Dye, 2018-Ohio-4551, 122 N.E.3d 678. “17 CA 00045 7 and the court may declare a forfeiture of the bond and thereafter execute upon it unless the surety can be exonerated as provided by law.”
State v. Harshman, 806 N.E.2d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2004). “Further, he maintains that he was indigent, and, therefore, R.C. 2937.40 prohibits a court from applying bail money posted by him to his restitution and costs.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.40(A)(3): 2 cases
State v. Lee, 2012-Ohio-4329. “46 and R.C. 2937.40. State v. Hopings, 6th Dist.”
State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus, 784 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio 2003). “R.C. 2937.40. It is undisputed that both Kinney and Cary Young made timely court appearances.”
State ex rel. Baker v. Troutman, 553 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio 1990). “Respondents further argue that they owe no duty to relator Shury because R.C. 2937.40(B) states, or at least implies, that cash or security deposits may be retained with consent of the surety: *273 “* * * The court shall not apply any of the deposited cash or securities toward,…”
State v. Harshman, 806 N.E.2d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2004). “Further, he maintains that he was indigent, and, therefore, R.C. 2937.40 prohibits a court from applying bail money posted by him to his restitution and costs.”
State v. Harshman, 806 N.E.2d 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2004). “Further, he maintains that he was indigent, and, therefore, R.C. 2937.40 prohibits a court from applying bail money posted by him to his restitution and costs.”
State v. Lefever, 632 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). “The court ordered the bond returned to Lonnie pursuant to R.C. 2937.40, finding that the receipt for the cash posting in municipal court was issued in his name.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.