Title: State v. Hance

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Hance (2006-255); 180 Vt. 357; 910 A.2d 874

2006 VT 97

[Filed 08-Sep-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 97

                                No. 2006-255


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Rutland Circuit

  Henry J. Hance, Jr.                            June Term, 2006


  M. Patricia Zimmerman, J.

  Marc D. Brierre, Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Henry Hinton and Kelly Green,
    Appellate Attorneys, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.


       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.  Defendant Henry J. Hance, Jr. appeals the bail
  imposed by the district court.  The court required defendant to post
  $60,000 in cash without an option to have that amount guaranteed by a
  third-party surety.  While a cash-only bail is arguably authorized by 13
  V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1)(F), defendant claims that the statute conflicts with
  Chapter II, § 40 of the Vermont Constitution.  That section provides that
  "[a]ll persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties." (FN1)  We agree
  that, to the extent § 7554(a)(1)(F) permits imposition of cash-only bail,
  it violates our Constitution.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
  further proceedings.

                                     I.
   
       ¶  2.  The following facts are undisputed.  Defendant is charged
  with the felonies of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI), 23
  V.S.A. § 1201, 8th Offense, id. § 1210, and Possession of Cocaine in an
  amount of 2.5 grams or more, 18 V.S.A. §§ 4205, 4231(a)(2), and the
  misdemeanor of Driving with License Suspended.  23 V.S.A. § 674.  Defendant
  fled to South Carolina in late 2005 prior to his arraignment on these
  charges, leaving his mother and a teenage son behind in Vermont.  Defendant
  avoided capture for several months before being arrested in South Carolina. 
  After his arrest, defendant refused to waive extradition or return to
  Vermont until he learned that an application for a governor's warrant under
  13 V.S.A. § 4962 was pending before the Governor.  Defendant returned to
  Vermont and was arraigned on May 11, 2006.

       ¶  3.  At arraignment, defendant did not oppose the State's request
  for cash bail in the amount of $60,000, but reserved the right to file for
  modification of bail.  Defendant moved to review bail, seeking to modify
  the cash bail requirement to permit defendant to post 10% of the $60,000 in
  cash and the remainder with sufficient sureties.  The State opposed
  defendant's request.  Defendant argued that the imposition of a cash-only
  bail violated his rights under Chapter II, §40 of the Vermont Constitution.  
   
       ¶  4.  At the bail review hearing, defendant's mother testified
  that, while she was willing and able to post 10% surety with her property
  as a guarantee, she could not post $60,000 in cash.   The trial court found
  "ample evidence" to conclude that defendant was a flight risk and that
  there were "sufficient facts to justify . . . cash bail."  In so holding,
  the trial court considered defendant's significant history of criminal
  convictions.  Defendant has been convicted of DUI eight times since 1987,
  five times in Vermont, twice in New York, and once in Pennsylvania. 
  Defendant's multiple DUI convictions led the Vermont Commissioner of Motor
  Vehicles to suspend his license for life in 1994.  23 V.S.A. § 1208(b). 
  Defendant has been convicted five times on drug charges since 1988. 
  Defendant's history includes two assault convictions, including one for
  aggravated assault.  His criminal record also contains convictions for car
  theft, arson, breaking and entering, grand larceny, and four parole
  violations.


       ¶  5.  In imposing bail, the court noted defendant's long criminal
  record and expressed particular concern about defendant's prior failure to
  appear, including his flight to South Carolina and five-month absence
  there.  Citing 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1)(C), (D), (FN2) the court concluded
  that it had the authority to impose a cash-only condition, noting that the
  Vermont bail statutes refer to "cash or surety."  The court made no finding
  that the 10% cash and the house offered to secure defendant's appearance
  was insufficient or unsatisfactory.  The court was careful, however, to
  tell defendant that cash "bail is not being imposed to ensure your
  incarceration, Mr. Hance.  It is being imposed to ensure your appearance .
  . . ."  The court denied defendant's motion to modify the $60,000 cash bail
  requirement.  Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                     II.
   
       ¶  6.  On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court's $60,000
  cash-only bail condition violates Chapter II, § 40 of the Vermont
  Constitution, which provides that "[a]ll persons shall be bailable by
  sufficient sureties." (FN3)  Defendant asserts that the order imposing
  cash-only bail must be reversed and that he should be released upon posting
  10% of the bail amount. (FN4)  The State counters that 13 V.S.A. §
  7554(a)(1)(F) explicitly permits the district court to impose cash-only
  bail.  Ordinarily, we review a district court's decision regarding the type
  and amount of bail for abuse of discretion.  State v. Turnbaugh, 174 Vt.
  532, 534-35,