COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 72766
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.         :
BRIAN KUTNAR                  :
                              :       ORIGINAL ACTION
          Petitioner          :
                              :        JOURNAL ENTRY
        vs.                   :
                              :            AND
                              :
WARDEN MICHAEL PAVICIC        :          OPINION
                              :
          Respondent          :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                       JULY 14, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:          WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                                   (Common Pleas Court Case
                                   Nos. CR-350475 and 351468)
JUDGMENT:                          WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner:                    For Respondent:
EDWARD W. RAUSCH                   STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
5443 Ridge Road - Suite 204        Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Parma, Ohio 44129                  CHRISTOPHER FREY
                                   Assistant County Prosecutor
                                   Justice Center - Courts Tower
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
O'DONNELL, J.:
     Brian Kutnar  filed a Petition for  a Writ of Habeas  Corpus
alleging excessive bail and urging that the trial court abused its
                                2
discretion in  revoking his  bond in  Case No.  CR-350475 and  in
increasing his bond from $18,000 to $100,000 in Case No. CR-351468.
Citing Jenkins v. Billy (1988), 43 Ohio St.3d 84, he asserts habeas
corpus is an appropriate means to seek relief from excessive bail.
     Our court  granted  an emergency  hearing on  these  issues,
reviewed the transcripts from the June 5, 1997 arraignment and the
June  25, 1997  hearing on  the motion  for reconsideration,  and
further considered the exhibits and affidavit of the petitioner.
     It is immediately apparent - and petitioner's counsel agreed -
that the court imposed a no contact  condition of bond in Case No.
CR-350475 which involved charges of felonious assault, kidnaping,
domestic  violence with  a  prior conviction,  disrupting  public
service, and aggravated robbery.
     At the time of his arraignment on Case No. 351468, Kutnar had
posted an $18,000 bond.  The common pleas court heard arguments of
counsel regarding bond and  applied the $100,000 bond  previously
posted in Case No. 350475 to  this case, but revoked the bond  in
Case No. 350475, and remanded the petitioner.
     On June 25, the court held a hearing on petitioner's motion to
reconsider  revocation.     At  that   time  Elizabeth   Stislow,
petitioner's former girlfriend and the victim of the indictments in
both cases,  testified that,  in  an effort  to locate  her,  two
separate telephone calls were placed to the Surfside Tanning Salon
on  Lakeshore  Boulevard  in  Eastlake,  Ohio,  a  business   she
frequented.  A Salon employee and  the owner took the calls.   In
addition, she testified that petitioner attempted to contact  her
                                3
through  her uncle, Robert  Novak.  Because  of these efforts  to
contact  her, the  court concluded  petitioner violated  the   no
contact  condition of his bond and, therefore, denied the  motion
for reconsideration.   As a result,  petitioner now seeks  habeas
corpus relief alleging he is being illegally detained and that he
has no adequate remedy at law.
     We note that  revocation of pretrial  bond can constitute  a
circumstance  permitting an  original  action in  habeas  corpus.
 There is an anomaly in original actions which are filed  seeking
habeas corpus on the grounds of excessive bail because the effect
of such cases is an appeal from a decision of the trial court; yet,
such cases are also considered as original actions so as to permit
hearings and findings of fact.    In re DeFronzo (1977), 49  Ohio
St.2d 271, 273.
     Further, the provisions of Crim.R. 46(I), state:
     Information stated in or offered in connection with any
     order entered pursuant to this rule need not conform to
     the rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in
     a court of law.
     In State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d  591,
the court considered a post-conviction  no contact  condition  of
bond, and determined, in accordance with Crim.R. 46(C)(2), such a
condition was appropriate.  We find that reasoning to be persuasive
in this case.
     Thus,  after  considering  the  record  in  this  case   and
corroborating evidence presented at the hearing in this court, we
find the revocation of the bond in Case No. CR-350475 to be proper.
                                4
     Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.
Costs to petitioner.
PORTER, P.J.,
KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR
                                        JUDGE
                                  TERRENCE O'DONNELL
.