By Meladi Brewer

DailyAdvocate.com

GREENVILLE — Mark A. Barberine, 58, of Greenville appeared in the Common Pleas Court via Zoom for a pre-trial hearing. Judge Travis L. Fliehman presided.

His trial could potentially be moved from Aug. 20th and 21st to September due to the prosecutor and defense agreeing that the evidence and witnesses in the case are substantial and more time is needed in order to ensure a fair trial is given.

“This is a case that just looking at the discovery, there is no way that we try this in two days,” Defense Attorney Randall Breaden said. “I mean, the state’s witness list is at what I think would be a minimum of probably 10 people?”

“Oh gosh. More than that,” State Prosecutor James Bennett said.

Breaden acknowledged Bennett, and he told the court that quite frankly, where he is at, he is looking at someone to go through Barberine’s business records, as he was in business for a number of years. “Boxes and boxes of files” were dropped off at Breaden’s office, and he said this is a case that the court would need a minimum of a week to try Barberine. Breaden also said he does not see this trial coming to the court in two weeks.

“I think that is fair,” Bennett said.

Judge Fliehman asked the attorneys what they are going to do regarding a speedy trial because the court is moving quickly with Barberine in jail. Bennett agreed it is an issue and said “he is not the issue”, as he has cooperative witnesses, but Bennett did agree the court and defense attornies need a little more time to prepare for a trial and defense case due to all the moving parts. He wants to ensure all research has been completed in an appropriate matter and the defense has had ample time to properly go through all evidence.

“I’m just concerned about finding a week because we don’t have time until November or December. We are going to have to kick another case in order to stay within the speedy trial requirements,” Judge Fliehman said. “We may have to look at something in September to stay within the 90 days.”

Breaden asked if the prosecutor is going to add more charges, and Bennett advised the court that he does have more charges to add to Barberine’s indictment that will be filed on Thursday. As of Monday morning, Barberine was facing a six count incitement including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a felony of the second degree; theft with deception, a felony of the fourth degree, and misuse of a credit card, a felony of the fifth degree; passing bad checks, a felony of the fifth degree.

Breaden said that the adding of more charges causes another conflict, and the court agreed to look at setting a trial in September, and they agreed to meet again on Monday, July 29th to discuss a bond modification. Barberine had previously asked the court for a Personal Recognisance Bond, and the the court denied the request. On May 29, 2024, the Court ordered bond in the amount of $200,000, cash. On June 4, 2024, the defense filed a motion for bond reduction with the State filing a response on June 11, 2024.

The only new information presented in the defendant’s motion that the Court did not previously have available related to other pending cases against Barberine in Miami County and Montgomery County. The defendant argues that because those courts ordered a personal recognizance bond, this court should do the same. Barberine was given a chance to update the court regarding his cases within those counties.

“As I understand it, I have a court date tomorrow morning in Montgomery. When I was there last, we had discussed that they were likely to do an In lieu of Conviction (ILC) or a probation,” Barberine said. “That was the offer presented to me, and I am going down tomorrow to finalize that.”

Barberine is on trial in Montgomery County for a three-count indictment for passing bad checks, a felony of the fifth degree; forgery, a felony of the fifth degree. Barberine faces a one-count indictment in Miami County for passing bad checks, a felony of the fifth degree.

“The Miami County case, I did sign a plea agreement for probation, so so we have a date in August, so they have the intention to probate me there,” Barberine said. “I very much -I thank you for your consideration.”

In the original bond modification request, the court was not persuaded, as the charges pending in Darke County are more extensive with a 13-county indictment including three counts of grand theft, two counts of misuse of a credit card, five counts of theft, grand theft of a motor vehicle, passing bad checks, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Judge Fliehman originally denied a personal recognisance bond due to the pending matters being significantly different, thus claiming the court should follow in the steps of the other courts is not justification for the bond. At the time, the bond was only modified to $125,000, cash only -no property or surety.

Breaden said that he and Barberine would be agreeable to several conditions upon Barberine being released, as they are aware that the primary complaint that some of the alleged victims had were that he would “go back out on business and cause more havoc.” It would be stipulated that Barberine would not be able to operate on any kind of business for himself or others and he would seek employment.

“This would slow down the speedy trial time and give the defense time to really go through the record and things. It is very difficult, as some of the information is on computers, some are paper files, and it is very difficult for me regardless wherever he is located,” Breaden said. “This case is just a very difficult case, and it is not your standard theft case where I can get all the information I need with some investigation.”

Breaden said this case is one where he is going to need some real time on the case to give it a fair trial, so he asked the judge to consider the bond issue. Judge Fliehman said that procedurally, he cannot discuss the bond issue without notifying the alleged victims and giving them a chance to come into the court to make statements regarding bond and their reasoning.

“I am happy to entertain it more, Mr. Breaden. I just don’t think procedurally I’m permitted to modify bond in a the manner you are requesting,” Judge Fliehman said.

It was agreed that the bond hearing will be set for next week Monday to ensure victims can be notified in ample amount of time to physically come in an address bond and their concerns regarding it.

To contact Daily Advocate Reporter Meladi Brewer, email [email protected].