Posted 1/9/2015

 In People v. Cruz-Velasquez, Case No. 14CA81 (Colo.App. December 31, 2014) the surety argued that §16-3-503 C.R.S. (2014) required law enforcement personnel to notify it that the defendant was in the United States illegally and they failed to do so.  The Court found no factual basis in the record for the surety’s argument but went on to interpret §16-3-503(1)(a) as follows: “Moreover, we reject surety’s contention that subsection 16-3-503(1)(a) requires jail personnel to investigate the immigration status of every defendant who is charged with a felony or a class 1 or 2 misdemeanor, or to make a probable cause determination as to whether he or she is illegally in the country.  Rather, in this case of first impression, we read the statute as requiring only that if a law enforcement agency has made such a determination, it must inform the bonding agent before a bond is posted.”

In re Bond Forfeiture of $15,000, 2014 WL 7261147 (Ariz.App. December 22, 2014) affirmed a trial court judgment forfeiting the bond.  The defendant was released on the $15,000 bond.  The defendant appeared and pled guilty, and the court released the defendant pending sentencing with the bond to remain in place.  A Special Term of the guilty plea provided that “If granted probation [the defendant] shall serve 1 year in the Pima County jail as a term of her probation.”  The defendant failed to appear for sentencing, and the trial court forfeited the bond.  Arizona Rule of Crim. Proc. 7.2(c)(1) provided that the court could not release a defendant on bail after conviction if the defendant “will in all reasonable probability suffer a sentence of imprisonment.”  On appeal, the surety argued that Rule 7.2 prohibited release of the defendant on bond after her guilty plea.  The Court thought that the Special Term of the guilty plea “created a condition of probation, not a sentence of imprisonment” and did not trigger the Rule 7.2(c)(1) requirement for immediate incarceration.