Case Title: State v. Spitsyn

Citation: 174 Vt. 545, 811 A.2d 201

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Spitsyn (2001-143); 174 Vt. 545; 811 A.2d 201

[Filed 03-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-143

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2001


  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Rutland Circuit
  Dmitri Spitsyn	               }
  (Marble Valley Bail Bonds, 	       }
    Appellant)                         }	DOCKET NO. 1128-8-00 Rdcr

                                                Trial Judge: Theresa S. DiMauro

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Surety Marble Valley Bail Bond, Ltd. appeals from an order of the
  Rutland District Court forfeiting bail following defendant's nonappearance
  for a status conference preceding his sentencing hearing.  We affirm.  

       The relevant facts are taken from the docketing statement and are not
  in dispute.  On August 17, 2000, Dmitri Spitsyn was arraigned in Rutland
  District Court on one count of negligent operation of a vehicle, in
  violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b).  The court imposed conditions of release,
  and surety posted $3,000 bail.  On October 31, 2000, the parties informed
  the court that defendant intended to enter into a plea agreement with the
  State and the court set the plea hearing for November 8, 2000.

       At the plea hearing, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea
  agreement to negligent operation of a vehicle, in violation of 23 V.S.A. §
  1091(a), and the trial court entered judgment.  A sentencing hearing was
  set for February 14, 2001 and, at a status conference on that day,
  defendant failed to appear and the State filed a motion for forfeiture of
  bail.  On February 16, a warrant was issued for defendant's arrest.  On
  February 27, the trial court heard the State's motion for forfeiture of
  bail and ordered that bail be forfeited.  

       On appeal surety argues that: (1) the language of the bond obligates
  it to secure defendant's appearance only "pending trial;" and (2) its
  obligation was discharged because the trial court entered judgment without
  notice to the surety and without reviewing defendant's conditions of
  release, as required by V.R.Cr.P. 46(c). 
        
       Surety's first argument is that the plain language of the bail
  agreement obligated surety to secure defendant's appearance only "pending
  trial" and therefore, at the time judgment was entered, 

 

  surety's obligation was discharged. (FN1)   A bail agreement is no
  different from any surety agreement, State v. Chatfield, __ Vt. ___, ___,