State v. Covington

• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HORTON, J.
• Citation: State v. Covington, 2023 ME 72, 304 A.3d 290 (Me. 2023)
• Docket Number: Docket: Aro-23-1
• Decision Date: 21 November 2023
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Adrian COVINGTON

304 A.3d 290

2023 ME 72

STATE of Maine v. Adrian COVINGTON

Docket: Aro-23-1

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: October 4, 2023

Decided: November 21, 2023

Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law LLC, York, for appellant Adrian Covington

Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, and Christiana Rein, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), 8th Prosecutorial District, Houlton, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.

HORTON, J.

[¶1] Adrian Covington appeals from a judgment of default and forfeiture of $17,815 in cash bail, see 15 M.R.S. § 1094 (2023), entered after the trial court (Aroostook County, Nelson, J. ) denied his motion to set aside the forfeiture of that portion of his deposited cash bail. He contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion because the bail bond did not, on its face, warn him of forfeiture as a possible consequence for violating the condition of his release that he commit no criminal act. We affirm the judgment because a publicly available statute authorized the forfeiture, see id. ; the bail bond stated that it was secured by Covington's cash; and the bail commissioner certified that the commissioner had explained Covington's obligations to him.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The facts are procedural and are drawn from the trial court record. In January 2020, Covington was charged by criminal complaint with six crimes, including aggravated attempted murder and assault, alleged to have occurred on or about January 11, 2020. The court ( Soucy, J. ) entered an order committing Covington to the Aroostook County Jail and setting bail at $250,000. Ultimately, the State dismissed the charges of aggravated attempted murder and added charges of robbery and elevated aggravated assault, resulting in a July 2020 indictment on seven charges. ¹ The order of commitment was amended repeatedly, resulting in a decrease in the amount of cash required to be posted for bail.

[¶3] On April 7, 2021, a bail commissioner issued a bail bond, signed by both Covington and the bail commissioner. The bail bond indicated that the bond was " SECURED " by $20,000 in cash posted by Covington for his release from custody:

SECURED. To be released from custody the following property is being posted. The property is:

Cash in the amount of $20000—

The bond included the following provision:

I agree to obey the following conditions of my release so long as this bail bond remains in effect. I understand that it is a crime for me to violate any of these conditions, and that if I violate these conditions I will be subject to arrest, jail and/or a fine.

As a standard condition required of anyone released on bail, Covington affirmed, "I will commit no criminal act ...." See 15 M.R.S. § 1003(1)(A) (2023) ; 15 M.R.S. § 1026(1) (2020). ² The court-ordered conditions of release, with which Covington agreed to abide, disallowed the posting of cash surety by a third party, and the bond indicated that none of the cash had been posted by a third party. Covington signed the bond under the affirmation, " I have read and I understand all my obligations under this bond. " The bail commissioner who signed the bond affirmed, "I have explained the defendant's ... obligations under this bond on this date," and Covington initialed that he had received a copy of the conditions of his release.

[¶4] On April 11, 2022, the State moved to revoke Covington's bail and sought forfeiture of his $20,000 in cash on the ground that he had committed new criminal conduct, including by assaulting multiple police officers. On June 13, 2022, the court entered an agreed-upon order granting the State's motion to revoke Covington's bail, and, after hearing arguments, it ordered the forfeiture of the $20,000 as required by 15 M.R.S. § 1094 and denied Covington release on bail. Covington appealed from that order to a single justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ( Mead, J. ), who affirmed the order. See 15 M.R.S. § 1097(3) (2023).

[¶5] Covington timely moved to set aside the forfeiture of the cash, see M.R.U. Crim. P. 46(g)(2)-(3), arguing that justice did not require the forfeiture because Covington—who was incarcerated without bail—would not be missing any court dates and because the forfeiture would cause a financial hardship to him and the family members who loaned him money for bail, who believed that there would be no forfeiture if Covington appeared in court. The court held a hearing on the motion on December 9, 2022. Covington presented testimony from his wife that she had contributed $2,185 in funds to Covington's deposited cash bail, believing from what Covington had told her that it would be returned if he attended all court hearings. Covington argued that it was unjust to allow any forfeiture because the bail bond did not mention forfeiture as a possible consequence of a violation of the condition that he not commit any further criminal acts.

[¶6] The court entered a judgment on December 12, 2022, determining that justice did not require forfeiture of the $2,185 of Covington's bail that his wife had contributed. The court granted the motion for relief as to the $2,185, "on the condition that those funds be returned" to Covington's wife, but it denied the motion as to the remaining $17,815 because there was "no evidence that Mr. Covington was misled by a representative of the State regarding how bail works or informed ... that the only way there was a risk of forfeiture was from a failure to appear." The court reasoned that the law presumed Covington to know that 15 M.R.S. § 1094 required forfeiture upon the violation of a bail condition.

[¶7] Covington appealed to us by filing a notice of appeal on December 27, 2022. With the appeal pending, we authorized the trial court to enter a final judgment on the forfeiture and accepted Covington's appeal as an appeal from that judgment. See State v. Williams , 1999 ME 82, ¶ 5, 730 A.2d 677 ; 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2023).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶8] The Maine Bail Code provides, "When a defendant who has been admitted to ... preconviction ... bail in a criminal case ... has violated the conditions of release, the court shall declare a forfeiture of the bail." ³ 15 M.R.S. § 1094. Section 1094 authorizes the Supreme Judicial Court to adopt rules governing the enforcement of a defendant's obligations, and those rules "must provide for notice to the defendant ... of the consequences of failure to comply with the conditions of bail." Id.

[¶9] Rule 46 of the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court, provides that "[t]he procedure governing preconviction ... bail for a defendant is generally provided by statute." M.R.U. Crim. P. 46(a). As required by section 1094, the Rule goes on to provide notice of the consequence of forfeiture if a defendant breaches a condition in a bond, and it authorizes a court to set aside a forfeiture if justice does not require the forfeiture:

(g) Forfeiture.

(1) Declaration . If there is a breach of condition of a bond, the court shall declare a forfeiture of the bail and give notice to the defendant and the person who has agreed to act as surety or deposited cash bail.

(2) Setting Aside . The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside, upon such conditions as the court may impose, if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture.

....

M.R.U. Crim. P. 46.

[¶10] Regarding the contents of the bail bond itself, the statute in effect when the bail commissioner issued the bond provided that "[i]n a release order ... the judicial officer shall ... [a]dvise the defendant of ... [t]he penalties for and consequences of violating a condition of release, including the immediate issuance of a warrant for the defendant's arrest." 15 M.R.S. § 1026(5)(B)(2). As defined in 15 M.R.S. § 1003(8), "judicial officer" includes a bail commissioner.

[¶11] Covington argues that, particularly because he and those who gave him money for bail are not professional bondspeople, the court should have set aside the forfeiture in full in the absence of a bail bond providing explicit notice of the possibility of forfeiture. ⁴ He argues that the court should have applied basic contract law principles to the bail bond such that the consequences for violating conditions of release are limited to those stated in the bond.

[¶12] We review for an abuse of discretion a ruling on a motion to set aside a forfeiture. See State v. Ellis , 272 A.2d 357, 360 (Me. 1971). In reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, we consider three issues: "(1) are factual findings, if any, supported by the record according to the clear error standard; (2) did the court understand the law applicable to its exercise of discretion; and (3) given all the facts and applying the appropriate law, was the court's weighing of the applicable facts and choices within the bounds of reasonableness." Marks v. Marks , 2021 ME 55, ¶ 15, 262 A.3d 1135 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶13] Although we have not explicitly stated so before, the statutory scheme and Rule 46(g) of the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure make clear that the defendant has the burden of proof and burden of persuasion on the motion to set aside a forfeiture. See 15 M.R.S. § 1094 ; M.R. Civ. P. 46(g) ; see also United States v. Gil , 657 F.2d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 1981) ; State v. Ventura , 196 N.J. 203, 952 A.2d 1049, 1055 (2008) ; Allegheny Mut. Cas. Co. v. State , 35 Md.App. 55, 368 A.2d 1032, 1034 (1977) ; People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. , 272 Cal.App.2d 441, 77 Cal. Rptr. 310, 313 (1969). Because a defendant bears the burden of proof on a motion to set aside a forfeiture, a defendant challenging a court's factual findings in ruling on such a motion must show that the record compelled a different finding. See State v. Norris , 2016 ME 37, ¶ 14, 134 A.3d 319 (stating that, when the defendant has the burden of proof and the fact-finder decides...