Opinion
A-14314
02-09-2024
Christopher Erik Mann, Appellant, v. State of Alaska, Appellee.
Trial Court Case No. 4FA-23-01246CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges
ORDER MOTION TO REVIEW BAIL DECISION
This appeal concerns a pretrial bail order. Christopher Erik Mann is awaiting trial on charges of kidnapping, coercion, third-degree fear assault, and fourth-degree weapons misconduct. Mann is an active-duty Army sergeant stationed at Fort Wainwright. The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint in this case states that the charged incident occurred in the aftermath of an evening of drinking and socializing with a fellow soldier, Chastin Miller, and their respective romantic partners. The affidavit relates that the group went drinking at a bar in Fairbanks but Mann became angry and went home early. Mann and Miller lived in adjoining units in a duplex. When Miller and the women returned to the duplex, Mann was outside carrying firearms. Miller told the women to go inside. Mann fired a gun into the brush near Miller, and then held a gun to Miller's head and made him walk around the property for some time. Miller eventually was able to convince Mann that he was Mann's ally and get him to put the gun down, at which point troopers arrived and arrested Mann.
AS 11.41.300(a)(2)(B), AS 11.41.530(a)(1), AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), and AS 11.61.210(a)(3), respectively.
At Mann's arraignment, the magistrate judge required Mann to post a $50,000 performance bond and have a third-party custodian. At that hearing, Mann stated that he earned around $50,000 per year, had a vehicle worth $4,000 or $5,000 that he still owed money on, and had about $700 in the bank.
Mann requested a bail hearing seeking to have his bail reduced to a $1,000 performance bond and to be on house arrest under the Pretrial Enforcement Division's electronic monitoring program. Mann asserted that he could only afford to post a $1,000 bond. Mann also stated that he had been evicted from the duplex that he shared with Miller, and that Mann did not yet have a proposed residence where he would be living, but asked that the court leave approval of a residence up to the Pretrial Enforcement Division. The superior court rejected Mann's bail proposal, stating:
The court agrees, to some degree, with [defense counsel] that money alone isn't going to be the thing that keeps the community or Mr. Miller safe. However, the proposal, at this juncture, is too loose for the Court to find that it would keep the community and Mr. Miller safe. I think without knowing where Mr. Mann would be living - I understand he wouldn't be living right next door to Mr. Miller - but without knowing where he's going to be living, who he would be living with, that the Court would be reluctant to relinquish, in a case like this, all of that approval to [the Pretrial Enforcement Division] without knowing.
The court concluded by stating that it "really needs a little bit stronger of a proposal, tighter proposal here," before it would be willing to reduce the monetary amount.
In November 2023, Mann filed a request for a second bail hearing, asserting that he could not post bail because his income had been discontinued since his incarceration. Mann again sought to have the performance bond reduced to $1,000 and to be placed on house arrest and electronic monitoring with the Pretrial Enforcement Division. The superior court held a hearing and denied Mann's renewed request, relying on its previous analysis set forth at the prior bail hearing and noting that given the degree of dangerousness exhibited in Mann's behavior, a third-party custodian was necessary.
Mann appeals the superior court's most recent bail order, arguing that he should have been relieved of the third-party custodian requirement and placed on electronic monitoring, and that the superior court should be directed to reconsider the amount of the performance bond. But the court expressly noted at the first bail hearing that it would not approve Mann's bail proposal without a specific residence, and Mann did not rectify this deficiency at the second bail hearing. In light of Mann's proposal and the circumstances of this case, the court's conclusion that Mann's proposal was "too loose" without an identified residence was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's November 15, 2023 bail order. We note that the court should consider releasing Mann on electronic monitoring without a third-party custodian if Mann can present a bail proposal that addresses the superior court's concerns regarding public safety.
Entered at the direction of the Court.