In re Christie

*1107 Opinion

The trial court set bail at 10 times the amount specified in the bail schedule but failed to state specific grounds for its decision. The role of this court in reviewing a bail setting is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. (Ex parte Duncan (1879) 53 Cal. 410, 411 ; Ex parte Hoge (1874) 48 Cal. 3, 5 ; People v. Norman (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 381, 398 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 609 ], overruled on other grounds by McDermott v. Superior Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 693, 697 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 493 P.2d 1161 ]; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Pretrial Proceedings, § 90, p. 290.) Here we are unable to determine if there was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to state specific grounds for its decision. We order the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings in which the trial court’s statement of reasons shall “contain more than mere findings of ultimate fact or a recitation of the relevant criteria for release on bail; the statement should clearly articulate the basis for the court’s utilization of such criteria.” (In re Pipinos (1982) 33 Cal.3d 189, 193 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 730 , 654 P.2d 1257 , 28 A.L.R.4th 205…