The opinion
The majority concludes: "We are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a reduction in bail." I find that the bail was reasonable under the facts presented here.
The discretionary bail schedule of Rule 2, A.R.Jud.Admin., is, by its very terms, only "a general guide." Rule 2(B). See also Comment to Rule 2 ("[It]he bail schedule should be regarded only as a guide for the exercise of judicial discretion"). It is not mandatory except in those case where a defendant has been held without a probable cause determination, see Rule 4.3(a)(1)(iii), A.R.Crim.P., or without an initial appearance, see Rule 4.3(b)(3), A.R.Crim.P. Even in those cases, only "the minimum amount required by the schedule set forth in Rule 2 of the A.R.J.A." is mandatory. Obviously, even a cursory glance at the amounts of the recommended range of "discretionary bail schedule" reveals that the maximum amounts are outdated and inadequate to insure a defendant's appearance in a case such as the one presented here.