J-A31016-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DANTE OMAR SEALS
No. 1563 MDA 2014
APPEAL OF: SYLVESTER CASEY JONES,
BAIL BONDSMAN
Appeal from the Orders Entered August 20, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003928-2013
CP-36-CR-0004577-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DANTE OMAR SEALS
No. 2113 MDA 2014
APPEAL OF: SYLVESTER CASEY JONES,
BAIL BONDSMAN
Appeal from the Orders Entered November 21, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003928-2013
CP-36-CR-0004577-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 18, 2016
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A31016-15
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant, Sylvester Casey Jones, bail
bondsman, appeals from the orders entered August 20, 2014 by the
Honorable Margaret C. Miller, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
which reset Donte Omar Seals’ (Defendant’s) bail. Appellant also appeals
from the orders entered November 21, 2014, by the Honorable Dennis E.
Reinaker, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, which denied
Appellant’s petition to set aside or remit forfeiture of Defendant's bail and
exonerate as surety. After review, we dismiss as moot the appeal from the
August 20 orders at docket number 1563 MDA 2014. In the appeal docketed
at 2113 MDA 2014, we reverse the trial court’s orders of November 21 and
remand for further proceedings.
Appellant posted bail for Defendant in the amount of $110,000 for
charges docketed at CP-36-0004577-2013 and CP-36-000-3928-2013. On
August 4, 2014, Defendant failed to appear for a hearing. The trial court
issued a bench warrant, and Defendant was apprehended on August 19,
2014. At a bench warrant hearing held on August 20, 2014, at which a
representative of Appellant was present, but allegedly did not have an
opportunity to speak, the trial court reset Defendant’s bail at $1,000,000 at
both docket numbers, but did not set aside the bail forfeiture previously
posted by Appellant. See Order, 8/20/14. On September 12, 2014,
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 20 orders, which
the trial court denied. Appellant filed a timely appeal.
-2-
J-A31016-15
Subsequent thereto, on October 21, 2014, Appellant filed with the
court motions for exoneration and credit of surety at CP-36-0004577-2013
and CP-36-000-3928-2013. On November 21, 2014, the trial court denied
the Appellant’s motions and Appellant thereafter filed a timely appeal. On
December 23, 2014, Appellant filed an application for consolidation of the
appeals filed at 1563 MDA 2014 and 2113 MDA 2014, which this Court
granted.
On appeal, Appellant argues, inter alia, that both the Honorable Dennis
Reinaker and the Honorable Margaret C. Miller erred in denying the request
for exoneration of bail forfeiture without a hearing. See Appellant’s Brief at
6. We will first address the propriety of Judge Reinaker’s November 21
orders denying Appellant’s motions for exoneration and credit of surety
without a hearing. We review that decision pursuant to the following
standard.
The decision to allow or deny a remission of bail forfeiture lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, our
review is limited to a determination of whether the court abused
its discretion in refusing to vacate the underlying forfeiture
order. To establish such an abuse, the aggrieved party must
show that the court misapplied the law, exercised manifestly
unreasonable judgment, or acted on the basis of bias, partiality,
or ill-will to that party’s detriment. If a trial court erred in its
application of the law, an appellate court will correct the error.
Our scope of review on questions of law is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Riley, 946 A.2d 696, 698 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted).
-3-
J-A31016-15
In Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 827 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 2003),
this Court adopted a three-part test a trial court must utilize to determine
whether forfeiture is required in light of a request for set-aside or remission:
When a defendant breaches a bail bond, without a justifiable
excuse, and the government is prejudiced in any manner, the
forfeiture should be enforced unless justice requires otherwise.
When considering whether or not justice requires the
enforcement of a forfeiture, a court must look at several factors,
including: 1) the willfulness of the defendant's breach of the
bond, 2) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the
government, and 3) any explanation or mitigating factors.
Id. at 468 (citing United States v. Ciotti, 579 F.Supp. 276, 278 (W.D. Pa.
1984)). “A hearing is required on a bail bondsman’s request for remission of
forfeited money.” Commonwealth v. Nolan, 432 A.2d 616, 618 (Pa.
Super. 1981) (citation omitted; emphasis added).
Such a hearing is necessary in this case so that the court may
have before it evidence of the extent of the appellant’s
participation in the return of the defendants, ..., and any other
relevant evidence appellant may produce which may properly
guide the lower court in its future decision as to whether to
return any portion of the forfeited bonds herein involved.
Id. (citation omitted).
Instantly, there is no indication on the record that the trial court
conducted a hearing on the motions to exonerate surety. In light of the clear
pronouncement in Nolan requiring a hearing on a request for remission of
forfeited bond money, we are constrained to reverse the trial court’s orders
denying Appellant’s motions to exonerate surety and remand for a hearing
-4-
J-A31016-15
on the cost incurred by the Commonwealth in apprehending Defendant and
the amount of remission, if any, warranted in this matter.
Based on our disposition of the appeal docketed at 2113 MDA 2014,
we dismiss Appellant’s appeal from the orders entered August 20 as moot.
Appellant did not file motions for exoneration and credit of surety at any
time prior to the trial court’s August 20 orders resetting Defendant’s bail.
Although Appellant maintains that the trial court failed to address the issue
of forfeiture of the bail bond previously posted, Judge Miller correctly noted
in the September 17, 2014 opinion denying Appellant’s motion for
reconsideration that Appellant was first required to file the appropriate
exoneration request in a petition or motion before the court could address
that claim. He did not do so at that time and the court prudently declined to
address a claim not properly before it.1 Nonetheless, because we have
reversed the court’s November 21 orders denying Appellant’s subsequent
motions for exoneration and credit of surety without a hearing, we find our
disposition at docket number 2113 MDA 2014 effectively moots Appellant’s
appeal of the orders entered August 20.
____________________________________________
1
Although the transcript of the bench warrant hearing reveals that Judge
Miller expressed the opinion that the surety had not made any effort for the
return of the defendant and that bail would remain forfeited, that decision is
not addressed in the court’s August 20 orders. See N.T., Bench Warrant
Hearing, 8/20/14 at 3-4 (unnumbered). More importantly, the court had not
yet conducted a hearing on the matter prior to stating its conclusion as
required by the decision in Nolan. Thus, the trial court’s opinion expressed
at the bench warrant hearing is merely dictum.
-5-
J-A31016-15
Appeal at docket number 1563 MDA 2014 dismissed as moot. Orders
entered November 21, 2014 at docket number 2113 MDA 2014 reversed.
Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/18/2016
-6-