Opinion
A15-0756
02-08-2016
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Terri Ann Demarrias, Defendant, Midwest Bonding, LLC, Appellant.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) James McGeeney, Doda & McGeeney, P.A., Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). Affirmed
Hooten, Judge Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-13-9186 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) James McGeeney, Doda & McGeeney, P.A., Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
Appellant bonding company argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying its petition to reinstate and discharge a forfeited bail bond. We affirm.
FACTS
On December 3, 2013, defendant Terri Ann Demarrias was charged in Ramsey County with third-degree sale of a controlled substance and was released on her own recognizance. Demarrias was ordered to appear for arraignment on January 31, 2014, but failed to do so, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant. On May 9, 2014, Demarrias was arrested on the warrant. The same day, Demarrias was arraigned, and the district court set bail at $5,000. On May 15, 2014, appellant Midwest Bonding, LLC (Midwest) posted the $5,000 bond that is at issue in this matter.
On October 24, 2014, Demarrias pleaded guilty to the charged offense, and the district court scheduled a sentencing hearing on December 12, 2014. On December 11, 2014, agents for Midwest made contact with Demarrias and the indemnitor to ensure that Demarrias would appear as ordered. However, Demarrias failed to appear at the December 12 hearing, and the district court issued a bench warrant for her arrest and forfeited the bail bond. Demarrias apparently failed to appear in Ramsey County because she had been in the custody of the Pine County Sheriff since December 8.
Upon learning that Demarrias had failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, Midwest began efforts to locate her by running an electronic search of Minnesota jail rosters and attempting to call Demarrias and the indemnitor. When these efforts were unsuccessful, Midwest retained a professional fugitive recovery agent to locate and apprehend Demarrias. On December 15, Ramsey County placed a body-only hold on Demarrias and requested that Pine County notify it when Demarrias was ready for pickup. On December 16, the recovery agent informed Midwest that Demarrias was in the custody of Pine County and that Ramsey County had placed a hold on Demarrias. The record does not indicate whether Pine County received notice of Ramsey County's body-only hold or whether Midwest took any steps to ensure that the hold was communicated to Pine County. The Pine County District Court agreed to conditionally release Demarrias if she posted a bond and agreed to be released to inpatient treatment. On December 23, 2014, Midwest posted a bond for Demarrias in the Pine County matter, but the record reveals no communication from Midwest to Ramsey County regarding this bond. Despite the hold, Demarrias was not transported to Ramsey County. Demarrias was apparently released to attend inpatient treatment, but did not enter inpatient treatment.
Midwest filed a petition to reinstate and discharge the bond, and a contested hearing was held on March 20, 2015. At the hearing, the state recommended that the bail bond be reinstated and discharged with a penalty of $500. On April 7, 2015, the district court denied Midwest's petition for reinstatement and discharge and ordered that the bond remain forfeited in its entirety. By that date, Demarrias had not been taken into custody on the Ramsey County warrant and had not been sentenced.
DECISION
On appeal, Midwest argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate the forfeited bond. If a defendant released on bail fails to appear and the bond goes into default, "the [district] court may forgive or reduce the penalty according to the circumstances of the case and the situation of the party on any terms and conditions it considers just and reasonable." Minn. Stat. § 629.59 (2014). We review a district court's decision on a petition to reinstate a forfeited bond for an abuse of discretion. State v. Askland, 784 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Minn. 2010). When determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we consider the following factors:
Midwest also argues that the district court, in making its findings of fact, erroneously considered information from a Pine County District Court file involving Demarrias because this information was not produced at the district court hearing. But, the district court may take judicial notice of facts that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Minn. R. Evid. 201(b); see In re Zemple, 489 N.W.2d 818, 819-20 (Minn. App. 1992) (recognizing that a district court may take judicial notice of other proceedings involving the same litigants). We conclude that the district court properly took judicial notice of the information in the Pine County file. We also note that Midwest made no post-decision motion to the district court challenging the district court's reference to the information from Pine County and makes no arguments to this court challenging the accuracy of the information from Pine County. See Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987) (stating that, in order to obtain reversal, an appellant must show error by the district court and prejudice arising from that error). Under these circumstances, we reject Midwest's assertion that the district court's purported error in referring to the Pine County information precludes this court from considering the part of its order based on that information. --------
(1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose and length of a defendant's absence; (2) the good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant; and (4) any prejudice to the [s]tate in its administration of justice.Id. (citing In re Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 471, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (1953)). Midwest bears the burden of establishing that the first three factors weigh in favor of reinstatement, but the state bears the burden of proving any claimed prejudice. Id. The purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose, and length of a defendant's absence
The purpose of allowing third parties to act as sureties and post bonds "is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of detaining him pending the trial and at the same time, by placing him in the protective custody of a surety . . . , to insure his presence for trial" without impairing the administration of justice. Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 471, 60 N.W.2d at 46. "Another [purpose] is to encourage sureties to locate, arrest, and return defaulting defendants to the authorities to facilitate the timely administration of justice." State v. Vang, 763 N.W.2d 354, 358 (Minn. App. 2009).
Midwest received notice of Demarrias' failure to appear and made some efforts to locate Demarrias. After discovering that Demarrias was being held in Pine County, Midwest issued another bond on that charge. Even though Midwest was aware of Ramsey County's body-only hold, there is no indication in the record that Midwest made any effort to ensure Demarrias' return to Ramsey County. The purpose of bail was not accomplished here because Midwest, by posting bail for Demarrias in Pine County, contributed to Demarrias' failure to appear in Ramsey County and because Demarrias was still not in custody in Ramsey County at the time of the district court's denial of Midwest's motion to reinstate the forfeited bond.
The good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant
"[A] [d]efendant's willfulness or bad faith is attributable to the surety" and weighs against reinstatement. Id. Here, Demarrias failed to appear for sentencing in Ramsey County because she was arrested on an unrelated criminal matter in Pine County. Then, despite the hold initiated by Ramsey County to Pine County, she was released to inpatient treatment, which she failed to attend. And, after being released from Pine County, Demarrias still failed to appear in Ramsey County and remained at large at the time the district court issued its order denying Midwest's motion for reinstatement. As Demarrias remained at large months after her release from Pine County, her failure to appear in Ramsey County was willful.
The good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant
Midwest contends that the record reflects its good-faith efforts in trying to locate Demarrias, as it attempted to call Demarrias and the indemnitor, ran an electronic search of all jails in Minnesota, and hired a recovery agent to locate Demarrias.
While Midwest did take some steps in investigating Demarrias' whereabouts, such steps seem to have been minimal and ineffective, especially because, as the district court pointed out, Midwest's "proprietary investigative software" used to search for Demarrias in Minnesota jail rosters apparently failed to discern that she was in custody in Pine County. Furthermore, Midwest knew that there was a body-only hold on Demarrias at the time that it issued the Pine County bond, but the record does not indicate that Midwest communicated this fact to either Demarrias or Pine County. While Midwest claims that it has no duty to inform a county jail that a defendant has an active warrant in another county, by not informing Pine County of the Ramsey County warrant and by issuing another bond to Demarrias, Midwest enabled Demarrias to avoid apprehension on the Ramsey County warrant. And, the record reveals no efforts by Midwest to ensure Demarrias' return to Ramsey County following the posting of the Pine County bond. Despite the recovery agent actually locating Demarrias in custody in Pine County, Midwest was apparently unconcerned with ensuring her appearance in Ramsey County.
Any prejudice to the state in its administration of justice
"[T]he prejudice-to-the-[s]tate factor in the Shetsky analysis is concerned solely with prejudice to the [s]tate in prosecuting the defendant." Askland, 784 N.W.2d at 63. Prejudice to the state includes the delay or thwarting of the administration of justice and the expense incurred by the state in apprehending the defendant. See Shetsky, 239 Minn. at 474, 60 N.W.2d at 48. At the time that the district court denied Midwest's motion to reinstate the bond, Demarrias was still at large. Because she was still at large, the state was unable to impose a sentence on her and was forced to bear the cost of apprehending her.
Equitable Factors
The district court concluded that equitable factors weighed against reinstatement of the bond because Demarrias did not enter inpatient treatment after being released on bond from Pine County and because there is no indication in the record that Midwest communicated to Ramsey County that it was posting bail on behalf of Demarrias in Pine County.
Midwest argues that these factors are irrelevant to the analysis under Shetsky. We disagree. The evidence cited to by the district court in considering these equitable factors, namely Demarrias' failure to enter treatment and Midwest's lack of effort in assuring her appearance in Ramsey County, is relevant to the Shetsky factors, most notably to Demarrias' and Midwest's lack of good faith.
Midwest next contends that the district court did not give enough weight to the "short period" that Demarrias was at large and pointed out that she was ultimately sentenced in Ramsey County. But, Demarrias was still at large at the time of the district court's ruling, and our review is confined to the record before the district court at the time it made its decision. Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387, 399, 35 N.W.2d 542, 550 (1949).
Midwest also argues that the district court did not give enough weight to the state's recommendation that the bond be reinstated with only a $500 penalty. But, the district court was not bound to follow the state's recommendation, and at the time of the district court's ruling, Demarrias had been released from custody because Midwest posted a bond for her in the Pine County matter, Midwest had not earlier communicated with the Ramsey County court that it was posting another bond for her, and Demarrias was still at large.
The district court determined that each of the Shetsky factors weighed against reinstatement of the bond. Given the failure of Midwest to obtain Demarrias' appearance for sentencing, Demarrias' willful non-appearance, the lackluster efforts on the part of Midwest in attempting to apprehend Demarrias, and the prejudice to the state, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Midwest's petition for reinstatement and discharge of the bond.
Affirmed.