Opinion
A21-1190
03-08-2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jimmie Bivins, Jr., Defendant, Banks Bail Bonds, LLC, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-19-7778
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
ORDER OPINION
ROGER KLAPHAKE, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. The defendant in this case, Jimmie Bivins Jr., was charged with gross-misdemeanor domestic assault. Appellant Banks Bail Bonds, LLC (Banks) posted a bond in the amount of $20,000 on behalf of the defendant to secure his release. After the defendant failed to appear for a court hearing on April 15, 2021, the district court issued a warrant for defendant's arrest and forfeited the bond posted by Banks. The defendant returned to court on May 25, 2021. Banks petitioned to reinstate the forfeited bond. In 1 response, the state recommended reinstating 50% of the bond. On July 21, 2021, the district court reinstated $10,000 of the bond without making any findings.
2. Banks challenges the denial of its petition to reinstate and discharge its bond in full. Banks argues that caselaw has established a four-factor test for bond-reinstatement cases, that the test favors full reinstatement here, and that the district court erred by failing to follow or make findings pursuant to that test. This court reviews a district court's decision concerning the reinstatement and discharge of a forfeited bail bond for an abuse of discretion. State v. Askland, 784 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Minn. 2010). A district court abuses its discretion when its conclusions rest on an erroneous view of the law. Id.
3. When a bond is forfeited due to a defendant's failure to appear, the district court "may forgive or reduce the penalty according to the circumstances of the case and the situation of the party on any terms and conditions it considers just and reasonable." Minn. Stat. § 629.59 (2020); see also Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 702(f) (specifying procedure for petitioning for reinstatement of forfeited bail bond). The Minnesota Supreme Court identified four factors, known as the Shetsky factors, for district courts to consider when determining whether to reinstate a bail bond:
(1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and the cause, purpose and length of a defendant's absence; (2) the good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant; and (4) any prejudice to the State in its administration of justice.2 Askland, 784 N.W.2d at 62 (citing In re Shetsky, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (Minn. 1953)). The surety bears the burden of showing that the first three factors weigh in its favor, and the respondent bears the burden of proving prejudice. Id.
4. The law is clear. District courts must consider the Shetsky factors in bail bond reinstatement cases. See State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn. 2003) (holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying reinstatement on the assumption that defendant's bad faith trumped the other Shetsky factors). Here, the district court should have considered the Shetsky factors upon Banks' petition for reinstatement, but it did not. Then, Banks requested reconsideration and specifically asked the court to apply the Shetsky factors to determine whether the bond should be fully reinstated. While the district court did not rule on the request for reconsideration prior to this appeal, it nevertheless had two opportunities to apply the correct law here and neglected to do so. Because the district court's conclusions are based on an erroneous view of the law, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Banks' petition without considering the Shetsky factors.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed, and Banks' forfeited bail bond is fully reinstated. 3
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 4