R. Hardy II, for the plaintiff in error (Afford-A-Bail,
Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Brian Preleski, state's attorney, and
Mary Rose Palmese, supervisory assistant state's
attorney, for the defendant in error (state).
Alvord, Sheldon and Keller, Js.
writ of error,  the plaintiff in error, Afford-A-Bail,
Inc. (Afford), claims that the trial court improperly denied
its motion to discharge its obligation on a surety bail
bond. Afford claims that the court, in denying
its motion, improperly concluded that: (1) the standard for
demonstrating ‘‘good cause'' for
discharge of an obligation upon a surety bail bond pursuant
to Practice Book § 38-23 is the standard first set forth
in Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366,
369-70, 21 L.Ed. 287 (1872), rather than a more holistic,
equitable assessment; and (2) the failure of the defendant in
error, the state of Connecticut, to extradite the criminal
defendant, Jay Garcia, after representing that it would do
so, was not relevant to the court's good cause
determination. The state argues that the requirement of good
cause for discharge of the obligation upon the surety bond
pursuant to General Statutes § 54-65c and aspects of the
common-law rule in Taylor as explicated in State
v. Sheriff, 301 Conn. 617, 21 A.3d 808 (2011), were not
satisfied. We conclude that the trial court properly denied
Afford's motion to discharge its obligation on the surety
bond and, therefore, we dismiss the writ of error.
following allegations of fact by Afford and procedural
history are necessary for our resolution of this writ of
error. In the underlying criminal case, the
criminal defendant, who identified himself to police as
Garcia, was arrested and charged with robbery in the first
degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134,
conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation
of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 52a-134, larceny
in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes §
53a-125b, and conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth
degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-125b.
These crimes were alleged to have been committed on or about
December 20, 2014. Garcia was arraigned in court on December
22, 2014. Bond was set at $75, 000 and the case was continued
to February 3, 2015. Garcia subsequently executed a $75, 000
bond with surety for his appearance at future court dates.
Afford is the surety on the bond. On February 3, 2015, Garcia
failed to appear and the court ordered Afford's bond
forfeited and imposed a six month statutory stay pursuant to
General Statutes § 54-65a.
April 29, 2015, Afford filed a motion to vacate bond
forfeiture. In its motion, it asserted the following:
‘‘Upon being arrested by the local authorities,
[Garcia] was processed. However, the true identity of
[Garcia] was never verified or his passport seized, due to
the fact that he is an illegal immigrant. [Garcia's]
legal name is Jonatan Lovis Mattos. . . .
to the offense date in which [Garcia] was criminally charged
(December 20, 2014), [Afford] became bo[u]nd by a bail bond,
as surety, in the amount of $75, 000 for the appearance of
[Garcia]. . . .
the issuance of the bond, [Garcia] was ordered by this court
to appear on February 3, 2015. [Garcia] failed to appear for
his scheduled court hearing and a rearrest [order] was
issued. . . .
was discovered that on February 22, 2015, [Garcia] fled the
jurisdiction of the United States from Bradley International
Airport in Windsor Locks . . . and absconded to Lima,
Peru. . . .
Nestor Silva Angeles, of the National Police of Peru-Division
of Criminal Investigations, has confirmed the location of
[Garcia]. . . .
country of Peru will not detain the defendant unless the
state . . . extradites him. . . .
is presumed that the Office of the State's Attorney [in]
New Britain will decline to seek extradition of [Garcia]
given his location in another country. . . .
bond was written by an agent of [Afford], who was not
authorized to write bonds for subjects who are classified as
undocumented, and as a result, [this agent's employment]
was terminated from [Afford's] company.''
21, 2015, the court denied Afford's motion and declined
to vacate the forfeiture ordered on the bond. On August 3,
2015, Afford filed a motion for extension of satisfaction of
the bond forfeiture, which was denied on August 4, 2015.
September 4, 2015, Afford filed a motion for reconsideration
of its motion for extension of satisfaction of the bond
forfeiture and a motion to compel the extradition of Garcia.
In the latter motion, Afford alleged that the denial of its
motion to vacate the bond forfeiture on July 24, 2015, was
exclusively based on the fact that the state had represented
that it would extradite Garcia and had initiated the
extradition process. On September 4, 2015, the court granted
Afford's motion for reconsideration of its motion for
extension of satisfaction of the bond forfeiture and extended
the stay of the forfeiture of the bond.
October 6, 2015, the court heard argument on Afford's
motion to compel extradition. Afford also again moved, by way
of an oral motion, to have its obligation on the bond
discharged pursuant to Practice Book §
for Afford provided two arguments in support of its motion to
discharge. First, Afford's counsel alleged that the state
made a representation in court three months earlier that it
would extradite Garcia back to the United States and that it
should be compelled to take the necessary steps to extradite
Garcia and provide written documentation of such efforts
within thirty days. In the alternative, counsel requested
that Afford's obligation on the bond be vacated due to
the state's lack of action. In response to this
argument, the state's attorney indicated:
‘‘It has been made clear that we certainly intend
to extradite [Garcia]. . . . I don't know what inquiries
were made, but this is a fully extraditable offense. That the
bondman should not be let off the bond for that reason
because it's extraditable and because we intend to
extradite once the Peruvian authorities notify us that
[Garcia] is in custody.'' Counsel for Afford
responded that the state's attorney had not taken any
steps to put an extradition into place. The court indicated
that the state had no obligation to seek extradition and
denied the motion to compel extradition.
counsel for Afford argued that its ‘‘rogue
agents, '' for their own monetary gain, lied about
Garcia's alienage to obtain authorization to write the
bond. Rather than rule on Afford's oral motion to
discharge its obligation on the bond at that time, the court
continued the hearing and indicated that it would terminate
the stay that had been imposed on the bond forfeiture 2 p.m.
on December 14, 2015, if there was no further information
from Afford by that time, and provided Afford with an
opportunity to provide affidavits substantiating its
allegations of fraud on the part of its rogue agents, to
produce Garcia on that date or to prove that an extradition
had been initiated by that date.
on December 8, 2015, Afford filed two affidavits signed by
Shane Burby, the owner of Afford, and William Munck, its
operations manager. According to both Munck and Burby, former
employees named Daniel Ruiz and Jesus Agosto provided them
with ‘‘false and omitting'' information
as to the status of Garcia's employment. The affidavits
stated that their agents also falsely advised them that
Garcia was a United States citizen and his father was a
former police officer. This ...