Opinion ID: 2776671
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Santiago failed to appear.

Text: The court stated that [a]t the time that [Santiago] was arrested for this offense he had failed to appear in the court in Massachusetts for a trial on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon and home invasion. Santiago's attorney challenged this, stating that Santiago did not voluntarily fail to appear because he was in jail in Puerto Rico at that time. In response, the court 1 The court went on to say: The Court finds that the sentencing guideline range for this type of offense is inadequate, certainly the Court's understanding is that it is not reflective of the seriousness of the offense, is not reflective of the fact that the defendant chose to violate the law while he was on bail from the judicial system in Connecticut [sic]. And that he came to the jurisdiction and engaged in an illegal action while on bail. 2 In reply, the court stated: That is not an issue. He has to go there, it will be decided and if the case is dismissed fine with me. I don't have qualms. But he was on bail, under court instructions, and one [of the] general conditions of bail is you shall not engage in any illegal activity[;] he came here and he did. -4- clarified what it meant: No, I am not talking about the failure to appear, I know he was here. I am talking about engaging in the illegal action of illegally possessing a weapon while on bail. Therefore, the court did not rely on Santiago's involuntary failure to appear.