CLARK v. HALL

CLARK v. HALL
2002 OK CR 29
53 P.3d 416
Case Number: HB-2002-889
Decided: 07/24/2002
LEANN CLARK, Petitioner -vs- THE HONORABLE RUSSELL HALL, SPECIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Respondent

[53 P.3d 416]

 
ORDER

¶1 Petitioner was arrested for the misdemeanor offense of Engaging/Offering to Engage in an act of Prostitution. Petitioner has been incarcerated in the Oklahoma County Jail since her arrest because she is unable to post the fifteen thousand dollar ($15,000.00) bail set by the trial court, as required by

¶2 Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court alleging

¶3 Respondent asserts the Bail Reform Act was a recognition that society has a right, and in some cases a duty, to consider not only an accused's right to bail, but also to balance that right against a community's right to protect itself or individuals in the community. Respondent avers the Legislature has recognized that in crimes involving prostitution, minimum bail amounts and/or personal recognizance bonds do not serve to protect the interests of society or the neighborhoods plagued by this unlawful activity. Prior to the enactment of Section 1101.1, Respondent contends those arrested on prostitution charges posted minimal bail amounts and then returned to the neighborhood to [53 P.3d 416] reoffend.

¶4 While we have no disagreement with Respondent's description of the nuisance of such conduct, such arguments are misplaced. As Respondent notes, the acts of engaging in prostitution and/or solicitation or procuring prostitution are criminal acts, punishable by not less than thirty (30) days in the county jail, nor more than one (1) year incarceration. See 21 O.S.2001, §1031 . Clearly, the proper way for the State of Oklahoma to combat such activity is to aggressively prosecute and incarcerate those who violate the laws. However, bail in Oklahoma is not, and cannot, serve as a criminal punishment.

¶5 This Court has long observed, the "purpose of an appearance bond is to guarantee [the] accused will be available at such times as the court may direct, and since bond should never be used for the purpose of punishing the accused, the sole guide in fixing the amount thereof should be to cause an accused's appearance to answer to the charge against him." See Bowman v. State,

¶6 The obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting

¶7 Prior case law of this Court has specifically set the guidelines to be considered by judges of this State in determining the amount of bail, if any, to be set for an accused. See Petition of Humphrey,

¶8 Because this Court has found

¶9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶10 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 24th day of July, 2002.

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin (Not Participating)
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge

/s/ Charles A. Johnson
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ Charles S. Chapel
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge

/s/ Reta M. Strubhar
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge

/s/ Steve Lile
STEVE LILE, Judge

ATTEST:

/s/James Patterson

[53 P.3d 417]

FOOTNOTES

1 Prior to April 19, 2002, bond for an alleged violation of Engaging/Offering to Engage in an act of Prostitution would have been set at $500.00, pursuant to an Oklahoma County Bail Schedule.