# Brown v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · February 12, 1993 · 615 So. 2d 1306

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935661

## Case

- **Full name:** Henry Lee Brown v. State.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** February 12, 1993
- **Citations:** 615 So. 2d 1306; 1993 WL 35050
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bowen
- **Judges:** Bowen, McMillan
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9935661

## Opinion text

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glance at the amounts of the recommended range of "discretionary bail schedule" reveals that the maximum amounts are outdated and inadequate to insure a defendant's appearance in a case such as the one presented here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935661. Public record. Not legal advice.