According to the court, it always refuses to return bail, no matter what the circumstances are, because giving the money back provides a disincentive to those on bail to follow their bail conditions. As our supreme court has stated numerous times, the trial court has properly exercised its discretion if it examined relevant facts, applied proper legal standards and engaged in a rational decision-making process. Melone argues that this case mandates the same result for virtually the same reason. See State ex rel. Coming to the same conclusion for the same blanket reason in every case despite the facts of each case does not satisfy this definition.
Case law supports our determination.
Wis. 2d at 830, has indicated that determining what justice requires under Wis. Stat. Consequently, the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by relying on one factor rather than weighing all relevant factors. We disagree with the trial court that giving money back to the person who posted bail provides a disincentive, in every instance, to those on bail to follow their bail conditions. Sometimes a defendant's drug or alcohol addiction may be so strong that it overrides the defendant's intent not to bring financial harm to the person who posted the bond. As for guidance about what other factors may be relevant, we addressed some of these factors in Ascencio .