Farsdale v. Martinez, C3-98-710
| Decision Date | 24 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-98-710,C3-98-710 |
| Citation | 586 N.W.2d 423 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Harold FARSDALE, Appellant, State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. Oscar Rios MARTINEZ, Respondent. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In determining whether to order forfeiture of a bail bond, the trial court must exercise its discretion and consider, among other factors, the proportionality of any prejudice to the state compared to the amount of the bail bond to be forfeited.
2. When the trial court's decision to forfeit a bond is against logic and facts on the record, a reviewing court will find an abuse of discretion.
Richard E. Edinger, Moorhead, for appellant.
Todd S. Webb, Clay County Attorney, Moorhead, for plaintiff.
Considered and decided by SHUMAKER, P.J., and CRIPPEN and KLAPHAKE, JJ.
Appellant Harold Farsdale, a bail bondsman, posted a $50,000 bond for respondent Oscar Rios Martinez. Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree controlled substance crime but failed to appear for sentencing. Respondent was taken into custody approximately two months later. The district court thereafter ordered forfeiture of the bond, finding prejudice to the state in its expenditure of $414 to effectuate respondent's capture and finding appellant's efforts to apprehend respondent insufficient. We reverse and remand.
On February 13, 1997, respondent was arrested for first-degree controlled substance crime in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.021, subds. 1(1), 3(a) (1996). Appellant, a retired highway patrolman doing business as Best Bonding, posted respondent's $50,000 bail bond and received $5,000 from respondent as security.
Respondent, who had no prior criminal history, entered a guilty plea. At respondent's first sentencing hearing on October 13, 1997, the court granted the state's motion to postpone sentencing and granted respondent's request to go to Texas to relocate his family. Because respondent had cooperated with law enforcement in other investigations and prosecutions, the state moved to amend the complaint to reduce the charge to second-degree controlled substance crime under Minn.Stat. § 152.022, subds. 1(1), 3(a) (1996), and moved for a downward durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Respondent failed to appear at his second sentencing hearing, scheduled for October 27. After respondent again failed to appear at his rescheduled hearing on October 31, the court ordered a bench warrant for respondent's arrest and ordered forfeiture of the bond.
According to appellant, he personally investigated respondent's whereabouts by making many telephone calls to respondent's relatives in Texas, as well as seeking assistance from respondent's attorneys in Fargo and Texas, from DEA agents and police officers in Minnesota and Texas, and from a Texas bail bondsman with whom appellant made financial arrangements contingent on the bondsman's apprehending respondent. Appellant claims that he did not personally go to Carrizo Springs, Texas, where respondent's family was residing, because he was told that respondent had fled to Mexico to hide from drug dealers.
After appellant determined that the Clay County arrest warrant was limited to Minnesota and North Dakota, he contacted the Clay County attorney, who enlarged the coverage to include other states. Respondent was thereafter arrested on the outstanding warrant in San Antonio, Texas, on January 12, 1998, more than two months after he failed to appear for sentencing.
Appellant moved to reinstate and discharge the bond. The trial court again ordered the bond forfeited. The memorandum of law attached to this second forfeiture order declined to find credible respondent's claim that he feared for his own safety. The court also found that respondent's flight delayed the administration of justice and prejudiced the state "by adding additional expenses in his capture and continued litigation." Finally, the court noted that appellant
made no attempt to apprehend [respondent] beyond checking on whether the warrant was listed by the N.C.I.C. in states other than in Minnesota and North Dakota. [Appellant] did not assist in his capture or produce [respondent] for sentencing.
Appellant then initiated this appeal.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering forfeiture of the $50,000 bail bond?
When a person under a bond fails to perform, the court may order the surety to "pay * * * the amount for which the surety was bound as surety." Minn.Stat. § 629.58 (1996). The court may also "forgive or reduce the penalty [of a forfeited bond] * * * on any terms and conditions it considers just and reasonable." Minn.Stat. § 629.59 (1996). "The purpose of a * * * bail bond is to secure the attendance of the accused in order that all questions touching upon his guilt or innocence may be determined." Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 470, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (1953); see State v. Super, 281 Minn. 451, 461, 161 N.W.2d 832, 838-39 (1968) (); State v. Mastrian, 266 Minn. 58, 59, 122 N.W.2d 621, 622 (1963) ().
In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in a bail forfeiture decision, a reviewing court considers
the purpose of bail and the civil nature of the proceedings and the burden of proof as well as the cause, purpose, and length of defendant's absence; the good faith of the surety as measured by the fault or wilfulness of the defendant; the good faith efforts of the surety--if any--to apprehend and produce the defendant; and the prejudice--by way of delay or otherwise--to the state, in its administration of justice.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Remer
...of majority of bond where efforts of the surety did not lead to the return of defendant, who remained at large); Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn. App. 1998) (reversing forfeiture of bond based, in part, on the surety's aid in locating the absent defendant); State v. Due, 427......
-
State v. Lee, No. A09-1056 (Minn. App. 4/27/2010)
...punishing the surety. Id. Thus, the amount forfeited must be proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the state. Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn. App. 1998). Here, appellant received notice of the defendant's failure to appear and of the forfeiture, but made no showing of ......
-
State v. Stellmach
...County within 90 days after the arrest warrant was issued, and appeared at a sentencing hearing on May 1. See Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423, 425-26 (Minn. App. 1998) (concluding that appearance bond served its primary purpose of securing defendant's appearance at trial when defendant......
-
State v. White
...argues that the purpose of bail was fulfilled here because White only absconded after pleading guilty, relying on Farsdale v. Martinez, 586 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. App. 1998).5 In Farsdale, we concluded that forfeiting a bond after the defendant had pleaded guilty would be contrary to the primary......