Case Title: State v. Marsh

Citation: 173 Vt. 531, 789 A.2d 939

Docket Number: 2001-110

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Marsh (2001-110); 173 Vt. 531; 789 A.2d 939

[Filed 19-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-110

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Rutland Circuit
Travis Marsh	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 218-2-00 Rdcr

                                                Trial Judge: Theresa A. Dimauro

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Surety Marble Valley Bail Bonds, Ltd. appeals from an order of the
  district court forfeiting  bail following defendant's nonappearance at a
  status conference.  On appeal, surety argues that the  court acted
  improperly in "impounding" bail before ordering the forfeiture, that bail
  was forfeited for  failure to comply with conditions of release rather than
  nonappearance, and that surety did not have  notice and defendant had
  insufficient notice of the required appearance.  We affirm.

       Defendant Travis Marsh was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct in
  May 2000.  On  November 3, 2000, surety posted $5,000 bail and defendant
  was released subject to conditions.   Among those conditions, defendant
  agreed to appear in court as required by notice to himself or his 
  attorney, that he reside in Rutland or Windham counties, and that he
  observe a curfew of 8:00 P.M.  to 6:00 A.M.  As part of the appearance bond
  signed by surety and defendant, surety acknowledged  that the purpose of
  the bond was "to insure the attendance of the defendant at all court
  proceedings,  and that as surety it [was its] responsibility to know when
  and where the defendant is to appear."  

       On January 2, 2001, the State filed a motion requesting an immediate
  status conference at  which defendant would be required to appear.  The
  court granted the motion on that afternoon,  scheduling the status
  conference for 9:00 A.M. the next day, January 3.  Defendant's attorney 
  received notice of the hearing.  The status conference was held as
  scheduled, and defendant failed to  appear.  Therefore, the court issued an
  arrest warrant for defendant, ordered the bail impounded, and  scheduled a
  forfeiture hearing.  Later in the day on January 3, defendant was arrested
  in Texas by  local authorities.  He was returned to Vermont several days
  later.  On January 18, 2001, the court  held a forfeiture hearing at which
  surety and defendant were present.  The court determined that  because
  defendant failed to appear at the January 3 status conference, defendant
  had violated his  appearance condition, and ordered the bail forfeited. 
  Surety appeals.

       Surety's first argument on appeal is that it was improper for the
  court to "impound" bail  following defendant's nonappearance, pending the
  forfeiture hearing.  Surety contends that the court  had no statutory
  authority to "impound" bail because the term does not appear in any statute
  relating 

 

  to bail, and that even if there were such a procedure, surety was entitled
  to notice of the proceeding.   We acknowledge that it is unclear what the
  court intended by "impounding" bail, and the record  indicates that surety
  was not present at the January 3 hearing when the court issued the order.  
  Nevertheless, surety's arguments are unavailing for the simple reason that
  surety failed to  demonstrate prejudice.  See V.R.C.P. 61; Ordinetz v.
  Springfield Family Ctr. Inc., 142 Vt. 466, 470,