On Point: 2. Bail/bond

State v. Kit R. Stilwell, 2022AP1734-CR, District 2, 4/05/23 (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After summarizing an “inordinate[ly]” complicated set of facts in an otherwise simple bail jumping case, the court of appeals notes that because he failed to file a reply brief, the state’s arguments were conceded by Stilwell. Recognizing that Stilwell was unrepresented and the “obligation on the part of a court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants,” however, the court briefly addresses Stilwell’s arguments. (Opinion, ¶7).

State v. James A. Jones, 2021 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs)

Sometimes friends or relatives post bail so that a loved one charged with a crime can be released. This published decision holds that when charges are dismissed and read in at sentencing, and the court doesn’t order restitution on those charges, the bond money must be returned to the payors. This rule applies even to global plea deals where the defendant pleads “no contest” to and is ordered to pay restitution on some charges, but other charges are dismissed and read in without a restitution order.

State v. Kenneth J. Heinrich, 2018AP2124-CR, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Heinrich moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his bail-jumping charges lacked a factual basis and were multiplicitous. His motion and subsequent appeal failed.

In re the Finding of Contempt in: State v. Shafia M. Jones, 2107AP2359, District 2, 5/9/18 (UNCITABLE SUMMARY DISPOSITION); case activity (including appellant’s brief)

This is a summary order, the holding of which may be of interest to trial lawyers. Because it is a summary order, it may NOT be cited “in any court of this state as precedent or authority,” § 809.23(3)(a). But the reasoning the court of appeals gives for its holding cites to and relies on published decisions. So if a circuit judge orders your client to sign his or her bond and threatens your client with contempt for refusing to do so, you should fight back using the same authority cited by the court of appeals in this summary order.

Pretrial detention can cause innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to get out of jail. This paper by three University of Pennsylvania Law School professors finds that the practice also increases the likelihood that detainees will commit future crimes, arguably violates a long list of constitutional rights, and costs taxpayers  lots of money. Looking for some creative arguments against pretrial detention? Click here

State v. Ronald Terry, 2013AP1940-CR, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Terry was arrested and detained on a probation hold. (¶¶2, 5). About ten days later he was charged with obstructing and, on the same day, appeared in court for a probable cause and bail hearing. (¶3). He argues the obstructing conviction should be vacated because he wasn’t given a prompt determination of probable cause after being taken into custody as required by County of Riverside v.

State v. Erwin D. Beckom, 2012AP159-CR and 2012AP160-CR, District 4, 3/7/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court properly applied bond posted in one case to a fine imposed in a different case even though the complaint in the case in which the bond was posted was dismissed:

¶9        Beckom interprets the statutory language “the complaint against the defendant has been dismissed … the entire sum deposited shall be returned” in Wis.

State v. Joseph J. Wilcenski, 2013 WI App 21; case activity

Conditions of pre-trial release – alcohol treatment and testing; constitutionality

Waukesha County has adopted a policy that all persons arrested for OWI as a second or subsequent offense who live in one of ten counties be released from custody on the condition that they participate in a “pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program.” Wilcenski argues that this condition violates the constitutional rights to medical privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.

State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05
For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 969.02(6) mandates that bail money be used to satisfy court costs, with no room for discretionary return to the depositor rather than payment of costs, ¶¶7-9.

This is a misdemeanor, but the relevant felony statute, § 969.03(4),

Barbara Melone v. State, 2001 WI App 13, 240 Wis. 2d 451, 623 N.W.2d 179For Melone: Theodore B. Kmiec III

Issue: Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in declining to set aside an order forfeiting bail, where the court indicated that it “always refuses to return [forfeited] bail money no matter what the circumstance,” ¶1.

Holding: “[T]he statute on bail forfeitures, WIS. STAT. § 969.13(2) (1997-98), requires the court to exercise discretion and consider factors for and against enforcing the forfeiture on a case-by-case basis.