# In re DeFronzo

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 23, 1977 · 49 Ohio St. 2d 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755999

## Case

- **Full name:** In re DeFronzo
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 23, 1977
- **Citations:** 49 Ohio St. 2d 271; 3 Ohio Op. 3d 408; 361 N.E.2d 448; 1977 Ohio LEXIS 353
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Day
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Day, Eighth, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755999

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting an anomaly in original actions which seek habeas corpus relief for excessive bail, the effect of which is an appeal from the trial court, but as an original action permits hearings and findings of fact

## Opinion text

Day, J.,
concurring. I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. However, I add a caveat. Abuse of discretion by the trial court is never an issue in an original action brought in the Court of Appeals to challenge the legality of a bond set by the trial judge in a criminal case. This was not an appeal. The Court of Appeals was trying the issue de novo. It had ;to exercise its own pristine judg *275 ment with respect to the requisite bond. Any contrary implication read into the court’s opinion is misplaced.
Herbert, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755999. Public record. Not legal advice.