Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0048 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BYRON MARQUIS SANDERS 02-0048 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: PETITION OF BAIL BONDSMAN TO EXONERATE SURETY BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., June 12, 2002:-- Defendant, Byron Marquis Sanders, is charged with five counts of forgery,~ five counts of issuing bad check,2 two counts of receiving stolen property,3 and defiant trespass.4 When he failed to appear at a court ordered proceeding on April 25, 2002, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and production in court. His $7,500 bail, posted by bondsman James C. Costopoulos, was forfeited. The bondsman has filed a petition to exonerate him as surety. He has deposited the $7,500. Defendant, Byron Sanders, was arrested on the within charges on December 24, 2001, and incarcerated on the charges in the Cumberland County Prison. He remained in prison until January 18, 2002, when he was released on $7,500 bond ~ 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 4105. 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925. 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(i). 02-0048 CRIMINAL TERM posted by James C. Costopoulos. On February 13, 2002, the bondsman filed a petition to vacate the bond. The bondsman averred that the defendant violated the conditions of his bail by being arrested on charges in Dauphin County, for which he was then incarcerated in the Dauphin County Prison. The bondsman further averred that he believed that defendant would, if he remained on bail, be a flight risk. A Rule to show cause was entered on the petition on February 19, 2002, returnable ten days after service. In the interim, Sanders was released from the Dauphin County Prison on February 22, 2002. On March 6, 2002, the following order was entered: [f]ollowing a review of the Rule to show cause and the answer filed thereto, and upon relation that defendant was released from the Dauphin County Prison on February 22, 2002, and is now scheduled to appear in Cumberland County for a pre-trial conference on April 25, 2002, and trial on May 6, 2002, the petition to vacate bail, IS DENIED. After defendant did not appear on April 25, 2002, the bondsman through contact with defendant's family learned that on May 7, 2002, Sanders had been arrested on local charges in Phoenix, Arizona on May 3, 2002, for which he was incarcerated in the Maricopa County Prison. On May 8, 2002, the bondsman notified the District Attorney of Cumberland County of the whereabouts of Sanders. Sanders is still in the Maricopa County Prison. On April 4, 2002, the Cumberland County Sheriff, acting on a warrant issued in another case by a District Justice in Cumberland County on March 16, 2002, entered the warrant in the National NCI system. No additional entry was made into NCI as a result a bench warrant that was issued in this case when defendant failed to appear on -2- 02-0048 CRIMINAL TERM April 25, 2002. On May 3, 2002, the Sheriff was notified by law enforcement authorities in Phoenix, Arizona that Sanders was incarcerated in Maricopa County Prison. The District Attorney of Cumberland County then notified the authorities in Arizona that he will extradite defendant. DISCUSSION Pa.R. Crim. P. 536(C) provides: (1) A bail authority, in his or her discretion, may exonerate a surety who deposits cash in the amount of any forfeiture ordered or who surrenders the defendant in a timely manner. (Emphasis added.' It is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to allow remission of bail. Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 703 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Super. 1997). "The prime considerations of the trial court in determining whether remission is appropriate are the result and the extent of the bondsman's efforts." Id. The bondsman's efforts must be more extensive than mere participation in the search for the defendant because the bondsman has the burden of proving that, "[t]he apprehension or return of the defendant [was] effected by the efforts of the bondsman or those efforts at least [had] a substantial impact on his apprehension and return." Id. In Commonwealth v. Nolan, 288 Pa. Super. 484 (1981), the bondsman actively sought the return of the defendant by alerting authorities in Maryland that the defendant was a fugitive, used personal sources and tracked defendant to a hospital in Maryland, and forwarded a copy of the warrant and bail piece to the Maryland State Police. The bondsman was not directly responsible for the apprehension of the defendant but the Superior Court upheld the -3- 02-0048 CRIMINAL TERM trial court's remittance of the bond because his "efforts were consistent with discharging his duties as a bondsman." In determining whether justice requires the enforcement of the bail forfeiture the court can consider: (1) the willfulness of the defendant's breach; (2) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the breach; and (3) any explanation or mitigating factors present in the case. Commonwealth v. Atkins, 644 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super 1994). In Atkins, the trial court issued a bench warrant for the defendant and forfeited bail for a failure to appear in court even though the court knew the defendant's failure to appear was a result of his incarceration in New York. The Superior Court reversed the trial court and held that, "[u]nder these circumstances, to require appellant to also pay the forfeited bail in the amount of $99,000.00 is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to law.., the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order total remission of the forfeited bail in this case." In the case sub judice, (1) the bondsman, knowing that defendant had violated the terms of his bail by being arrested in Dauphin County, and anticipating that defendant might flee if he was released in Dauphin County, filed a petition to vacate the bond, (2) the petition was not acted upon before defendant was released from the Dauphin County Prison on February 22, 2002, (3) when defendant did not appear here on April 25, 2002, the bondsman, using his own resources, located defendant on May 7, 2002, in the Maricopa County Prison in Phoenix, Arizona, and (4) the bondsman immediately notified the District Attorney on May 8th of the location of defendant. While -4- 02-0048 CRIMINAL TERM the bondsman was not directly responsible for the apprehension of defendant, under these circumstances his efforts were consistent with the discharging of his duties. The fact that the Cumberland County Sheriff learned of defendant's imprisonment in Arizona on May 3, 2002, as a result of a warrant issued in a separate case, does not outweigh the mitigating factors present in this case, especially the bondsman's effort initiated on February '13, 2002, to have his bond vacated. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of June, 2002, the petition of James C. Costopoulos to exonerate him as surety for Byron Marquis Sanders, IS GRANTED. The $7,500 deposited shall be returned to the bondsman. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michael Mervine, Esquire For the Commonwealth Michael Sheldon, Esquire For Petitioner :saa -5-