*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STANLEY MORRIS

(AC 40453)

Sheldon, Prescott and Elgo, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff in error, D Co., a bail bonds company, brought this writ of

error from the order of the trial court denying its motion for release

from its obligations under a certain surety bail bond that it had posted

on behalf of the defendant in the underlying criminal action. D Co.

claimed that the trial court violated its right to due process in numerous

ways during the adjudication of the bond forfeiture proceedings. Held

that the trial court properly denied D Co.’s motion for release from its

surety obligations; although D Co.’s unpreserved claims that the trial

court violated its right to due process during the adjudication of the

bond forfeiture proceedings were reviewable under State v. Golding

(213 Conn. 233), D Co.’s right to due process was not infringed in

any manner.

Argued April 23—officially released July 3, 2018

Procedural History

Writ of error from the order of the Superior Court in

the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, geographical

area number twenty, Hernandez, J., denying a motion

filed by the plaintiff in error for release from certain

surety bond obligations, brought to the Supreme Court,

which transferred the matter to this court. Writ of

error denied.

Thomas Becker, for the plaintiff in error (Dad’s Bail

Bonds, LLC).

Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state’s attorney,

with whom, on the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo,

Jr., state’s attorney, and Angela R. Macchiarulo, senior

assistant state’s attorney, for the defendant in error

(state).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, Dad’s Bail

Bonds, LLC, brings this writ of error challenging the

judgment of the trial court denying its motion for release

from surety obligations arising out of a $45,000 bond it

had posted on behalf of the defendant in the underlying

criminal case, Stanley Morris. After Morris failed to

appear in court as required, the court ordered the bond

forfeited. The plaintiff in error claims that the trial court

violated its right to due process in numerous ways during the adjudication of its motion for release and that,

pursuant to General Statutes § 54-65c, it was entitled

to release from its surety obligation.

The plaintiff in error’s procedural due process claims

were not preserved below, and we have, therefore,

reviewed them pursuant to the standard set forth in

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823

(1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773,

781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). Having thoroughly reviewed

the record, we are not persuaded that the plaintiff in

error’s right to due process was infringed in any manner.

We also conclude that the court properly denied the

plaintiff in error’s motion for release from its surety

obligations. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court denying the plaintiff in error’s motion for

release.

The writ of error is denied.