J-S04045-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANATOLIY A. VENSKYY :
:
: No. 581 MDA 2018
APPEAL OF: THEODORA :
COSTOPOLOUS :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-21-CR-0002780-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 23, 2019
Appellant, Theodora Costopolous, a professional and licensed bail
bondsman, appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County denying her Petition to Strike or Set Aside Bail Forfeiture,
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 536(A)(2)(a).1 We affirm.
The court below sets forth the pertinent facts and procedural history, as
follows:
In 2015, the Defendant, Anatoliy Venskyy, a Ukranian national,
was charged with numerous sex offenses committed against his
two daughters. After his arrest, cash bail was set at $100,000.
____________________________________________
1 The Rule provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen a monetary condition of
release has been imposed and the defendant has violated a condition of the
bail bond, the bail authority may order the cash or other security forfeited[.]”
Pa.R.Crim.P. 536(A)(2)(a).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04045-19
The Appellant posted bond for the Defendant based upon sureties
given by members of the Defendant’s family in the form of income
and real property. She also confiscated the Defendant’s Ukrainian
passport as a precautionary measure to prevent his flight from the
United States.
At the initial trial, the Commonwealth proceeded on nine separate
charges, with a total of 15 counts. After lengthy deliberations, the
jury was unable to reach a verdict on a single count and a mistrial
was declared on May 19, 2016. Due to the Commonwealth’s
desire to retry the Defendant, he remained out of jail on the
existing bond posted by the Appellant.
The Commonwealth pared down the number of counts and
proceeded to [a second] trial on September 19, 2016. This trial
culminated on September 21, 2016, with guilty verdicts on nine
of ten counts: one count of aggravated indecent assault of a child,
two counts of indecent assault, four counts of corruption of minors
(two misdemeanor and two felony), and two counts of indecent
assault. The Defendant was found not guilty of rape of a child.
In response to the Commonwealth’s request for an increase in or
the outright denial of Defendant’s bail, [the trial court] included
the following in [its] Verdict Order:
The Defendant shall post an additional $200,000.00 in
bail no later than the close of business on Monday,
September 26, 2016. Failing to do so, he shall report
directly to the Cumberland County Prison. We further
direct that as an ongoing condition of his bail that his
passport be turned over to the Clerk of Courts.
Order of Court, dated September 21, 2016.
In deciding to substantially raise rather than deny bail, [the trial
court] considered several factors. The seriousness of the prison
sentence the Defendant was likely to face was significant, as was
the potential flight risk. However, [the trial court] also considered
the Defendant’s appearance at all previous court proceedings and
the fact that his family already had significant assets at stake.
Notably, the Defendant was willing to return to face a second jury
trial after his first had resulted in a mistrial. For these reasons
[the trial court] allowed the Defendant to remain at liberty on
-2-
J-S04045-19
existing bail for five days to give him an opportunity to raise
additional funds to post the prospective increased bail amount.
Unfortunately, the Defendant absconded, apparently to his home
country, the Ukraine. Based on his failure to abide by [the trial]
court’s order of September 21, 2016, [the trial court] entered an
order revoking his bail and issuing a bench warrant for his arrest
on September 27, 2016.
Appellant filed a Petition to Set Aside or Strike Bail Forfeiture,
arguing that it was inappropriate for [the trial] court to increase
the amount of bail but then also release the Defendant from
custody without being required to provide the full amount of
security for his release. [At the hearing on Appellant’s Petition,]
Appellant argue[d] that [by] unilaterally requir[ing her] to
guarantee an extra $200,000 [bail amount] without notice or
consent, the court created an additional incentive for the
Defendant to flee, [such that she] should be exonerated from
forfeiting even the original $100,000 bond.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/18/18, at 12.
On the question of notice and consent, Appellant testified that Jaime
Keating from the District Attorney’s Office contacted her on September 21,
2016, immediately after Defendant’s bail modification hearing, to ask her if
she still possessed Defendant’s passport. N.T. 3/5/18 at 14, 19. Appellant,
who was on a two-week vacation in Rome, Italy at the time, replied that
Defendant’s passport was in her possession. Id. Appellant, however, denied
that Keating advised her during the phone call about the modification to
Defendant’s bail conditions. Id.
Appellant maintained that she did not discover the bail forfeiture until
she returned home from Rome on October 3, 2016. In response, she filed the
liens on properties belonging to Defendant’s parents and called the parents to
-3-
J-S04045-19
explain their obligations under their agreement. Id. at 15. Defendant’s family
denied knowing his whereabouts.
Appellant testified that she also contacted the Sheriff’s Office and the
United States Marshals, asking what she could to assist locating the
Defendant, but they advised against any action on her part, as they were
tracking him. Id. at 17. Eventually, Appellant claimed, she learned the
Defendant had apparently attended a family wedding in Baltimore,
accompanied the newlyweds as they drove to Mexico for their honeymoon,
and flew out of Mexico to the Ukraine. Id. at 17.
For its part, the Commonwealth responded that Appellant had failed to
assert, let alone prove, that either she or her agency had taken any action to
track the Defendant during the post-verdict phase of proceedings. Id. at 6.
Testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth in this regard was Cumberland
County Assistant District Attorney Erin Bloxham.
According to ADA Bloxham, she contacted Jamie Keating immediately
after the September 21, 2016, Verdict Order to express her concerns
regarding the Defendant’s risk of flight. Id. at 26. She directed Keating to
contact Appellant that day “to let her know what the change in circumstance
was and why we were looking for the Defendant’s passport. So that
communication went from myself to Mr. Keating, directly to [Appellant], as
she testified, the day [the bail modification hearing] occurred.” Id.
Furthermore, ADA Bloxham contacted Appellant again on either
September 26 or 27, 2016, and informed her that Defendant had failed to post
-4-
J-S04045-19
bail and turn himself in pursuant to the Verdict Order. Id. at 23-24. According
to Bloxham, Appellant advised her that she could do nothing because she was
not in the country. Id. at 24.
The court entertained oral argument, where counsel for Appellant
conceded that the $100,000 bail would be forfeit under the circumstances had
the court not increased the bail amount. Id. at 29-30. The court’s failure to
give Appellant notice and the opportunity to be heard regarding “the shifted
risk” of flight created by the bail modification, however, should insulate her
from the sanction of bond forfeiture, counsel maintained. Id. at 30-34.
The court replied that, at the very least, Appellant had notice of the
Defendant’s trial, which itself entailed a “shifted risk” of flight in the event of
a guilty verdict and continued release on bail pending sentencing. Yet,
Appellant did not arrange for a representative to attend the trial and any post-
verdict bail/release decision that would necessarily follow, the court observed.
Id. at 33-34.
Moreover, the court credited the Commonwealth’s testimony that it had
informed Appellant of the modification to Defendant’s bail on the day of the
Verdict Order. Notwithstanding Appellant’s receipt of this information, the
court observed, she neither sought to ascertain the Defendant’s whereabouts
nor petitioned the court to release her from surety duties at any time during
the ensuing two weeks until she returned to the States. Id. at 34.
In reviewing this matter, the court indicated it would take judicial notice
of Commonwealth v. Hann, 81 A.3d 57 (Pa. 2013), which requires a trial
-5-
J-S04045-19
court to weigh multiple factors in deciding whether to order the forfeiture of
bail. N.T. at 32-35. It subsequently entered its order of March 7, 2018, which
rejected Appellant’s blame-sharing argument and, therefore, denied
Appellant’s petition for remission of bail forfeiture. Citing Hann as governing
authority in its Order, the court found “that [Appellant’s] or her
representative’s failure to be present at the time of Defendant’s conviction by
a jury and corresponding pro forma bail review was not a denial of due process
by the court but rather a failure of due diligence on the part of [Appellant].”
Order, 3/7/18, at n.1. This timely appeal follows.
Appellant presents the following question for our consideration:
Does the trial court commit an error of law when it releases a
criminal defendant from custody without requiring that criminal
defendant to satisfy conditions of release on bail imposed by the
trial court in a bail determination and the failure of the trial court
to require the defendant [to] satisfy the terms of those conditions
precedent to release ultimately contributes to a bail forfeiture?
Appellant’s brief, at 2.
Our well-established standard of review in bail forfeiture appeals is as
follows:
“[T]he decision to allow or deny a remission of bail
forfeiture lies with the sound discretion of the trial
court.” Commonwealth v. Chopak, 532 Pa. 227,
615 A.2d 696, 701 (1992). Trial courts
unquestionably have the authority to order the
forfeiture of bail upon the breach or violation of any
condition of the bail bond. Id. at 701–02. In bond
forfeiture cases, an abuse of that discretion or
authority will only be found if the aggrieved party
demonstrates that the trial court misapplied the law,
exercised its judgment in a manifestly unreasonable
-6-
J-S04045-19
manner, or acted on the basis of bias, partiality, or ill-
will. [Commonwealth v.] Culver, 46 A.3d [786,]
790 [(Pa.Super.2012)]. To the extent the aggrieved
party alleges an error of law, this Court will correct
that error, and our scope of review in doing so is
plenary. Id.
Hann, supra, 81 A.3d at 65.
In re Hann, 111 A.3d 757, 760 (Pa.Super. 2015).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 536 provides two sanctions
when a defendant violates a condition of his bail—revocation of the
defendant's release or forfeiture of the posted bail bond. Pa.R.Crim.P.
536(A)(1)-(2). Here, there is no dispute that Defendant violated the
conditions of his bail. Moreover, because Defendant has absconded—
apparently to some undetermined part of the Ukraine—the revocation of his
release is not an available sanction.
Therefore, the Commonwealth confined its Rule 536(A) petition to
requesting forfeiture of the $100,000 bail bond Appellant posted upon the
Defendant’s pre-trial release. The Rule, however, also provides “[t]he bail
authority may direct that a forfeiture be set aside or remitted if justice does
not require the full enforcement of the forfeiture order.” Pa.R.Crim.P.
536(A)(2)(d) (emphasis supplied). See Id., at 760-61.
With the aim of guiding the Rule 536(A)(2)(d) determination, we have
observed:
Our Supreme Court has adopted the following multi-factor test
“for determining whether justice required full enforcement of a
forfeiture order”:
-7-
J-S04045-19
(1) whether the applicant is a commercial bondsman;
(2) the extent of the bondsman's supervision of the
defendant; (3) whether the defendant's breach of the
recognizance of bail conditions was willful; (4) any
explanation or mitigating factors presented by the
defendant; (5) the deterrence value of forfeiture; (6)
the seriousness of the condition violated; (7) whether
forfeiture will vindicate the injury to public interest
suffered as a result of the breach; (8) the
appropriateness of the amount of the recognizance of
bail; and (9) the cost, inconvenience, prejudice or
potential prejudice suffered by the State as a result of
the breach.
Hann, supra, 81 A.3d at 67-68. The Court noted the “list is not
exhaustive, and trial courts may consider other factors as
interests of justice require.” Id. at 68.
As this was the Supreme Court's first decision interpreting Rule
536, the Hann Court also provided guidance concerning the
burden of proof in forfeiture cases. The Court stated:
[I]n a case where the Commonwealth has sought
forfeiture, and the defendant or his surety opposes it,
a hearing should be held. At that hearing, the
Commonwealth has the burden of proving the
conditions to bail forfeiture as aforesaid, upon which
the burden will shift to the defendant or his surety to
justify full or partial remission of bail forfeiture.
Id. at 71–72. Because a forfeiture proceeding is collateral to a
criminal prosecution and civil in nature, the Court further
determined the proper burden should be by a preponderance of
the evidence standard. Id. at 72.
In re Hann, 111 A.3d at 761–62.
In the present appeal, Appellant contends the trial court misapplied the
law and abused its discretion when it issued a Verdict Order permitting the
release of Defendant prior to his compliance with the new bail conditions that
increased his risk of flight. Our precedential decision in In re Hann, however,
-8-
J-S04045-19
rejected as irrelevant to the Rule 536 analysis the very kind of blame-sharing
contention Appellant puts forth here:
The trial court, however, concluded that “neither the Supreme
Court in Hann nor Pa.R.Crim.P. 536 permit the blame-sharing
result Weachter [the bondsman] seeks.” Rule 1925 Opinion at 6.
We agree.
It is clear the focus of the multi-factor test outlined in Hann
is on the actions of the defendant and the surety. Although
[the bondsman] suggests the inaction of the police, the district
attorney and the magisterial district justice, are relevant
mitigating factors under the facts of this case, we disagree.
Indeed, the Supreme Court explained in Hann:
Instantly, there is little dispute that Hann's breach of
his bail bond conditions was willful, and that there can
be no explanation of mitigating factors presented by
a representative of Hann or [the bondsman]; thus, the
evidence in this case clearly weighs in favor of
forfeiture. Indeed, for purposes of the whole of
Pennsylvania law, these two factors need not be
extensively examined, as any evidence of willful
misconduct or mitigation by either a defendant or his
surety, and whether that evidence militates in favor
of or against forfeiture, should be self-explanatory.
Hann, supra, 81 A.3d at 68.
...
There is no support for [the bondsman’s] claim that the
Commonwealth's failure to file additional charges against a
defendant, or the court's failure to impose a higher bail, mitigates
a surety's duty to fully investigate a defendant's background
before issuing a bail bond.
Moreover, the Hann Court emphasized the financial aspects of a
commercial surety's relationship with a defendant:
Courts have uniformly held that a surety's status as a
bondsman tends to lean in favor of forfeiture. “The
-9-
J-S04045-19
driving force behind a surety's provision of a bond is
the profit motive.” In making the business
decision of whether to take a bail bond, “it is not
unreasonable to conclude that [a bondsman]
should have been fully cognizant of his
responsibilities and the consequences of [a
defendant's] breach of the conditions of the
bond.” Indeed, such calculation involves “a known
business risk ... for economic gain-the premium paid
for the bond.”
Id. at 69 (citations omitted and emphasis supplied). Weachter
[the bondsman], as a commercial surety, took a calculated
business risk when he agreed to post bail for Hann, who was
charged with kidnapping his ex-girlfriend and threatening her at
gunpoint. See Criminal Complaint, 2/18/2011, at 4. Accordingly,
the fact that the state trooper did not file additional charges
against Hann, and that the magisterial district justice declined to
set bail at $500,000 as requested by the trooper, is not relevant
to the question of whether the trial court should have ordered the
forfeiture of the $100,000 bond that was posted.
In re Hann, 111 A.3d at 762-63.
When viewed in light of the above reasoning, the record reveals no
mitigating factors weighing in Appellant’s favor, for she is a commercial surety
who took the $100,000 bail bond with the understanding that Defendant could
suffer a guilty verdict but remain released on bail pending sentencing, given
his strong ties in the community. In this vein, we reject the argument that
the Verdict Order’s increase of the monetary condition of bail heightened
Defendant’s risk of flight by any degree bearing upon the Rule 536 inquiry. If
anything, it was Defendant’s new status as a convicted criminal awaiting a
sentence of incarceration that increased the risk of flight, which the court
reasonably sought to offset by substantially increasing the bail amount. To a
- 10 -
J-S04045-19
commercial surety, such a status change is surely within the scope of
foreseeable events requiring a supervisory response.
As such, Appellant should have been fully cognizant of both her
continued responsibilities of oversight and the consequences of any breach of
the bail bond during the post-verdict/pre-sentencing phase. Therefore, we
conclude the court’s decision to release Defendant on modified bail pending
sentencing did not mitigate Appellant’s continued duty to supervise
Defendant.
Holding Appellant responsible for Defendant’s bail bond breach in this
way is consistent with precedent affirming forfeiture orders where a
commercial surety makes no attempt to contact a defendant upon his release.
See Id. at 764 (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court based
forfeiture in large part on surety’s lack of attempt to contact defendant after
release). Here, the record supports the trial court’s finding of fact that
Appellant first learned of Defendant’s post-verdict release within hours of the
Verdict Order, and yet she did not attempt to establish contact with Defendant
during the ensuing twelve days. Nor did Appellant alert the court that she
wished to withdraw as a surety given the change in circumstances. Therefore,
in conducting its Rule 536 analysis, the court properly viewed Appellant’s
failure to monitor Defendant as a factor favoring forfeiture.
Finally, it is apparent that the trial court reviewed the present matter in
light of the Hann factors before concluding that forfeiture was warranted.
Specifically, the court plainly considered: Appellant is a licensed, commercial
- 11 -
J-S04045-19
surety who made a business decision to bond Defendant; she made no
attempt to monitor Defendant’s trial and post-verdict/pre-sentence release
status; despite receiving updates on September 21 and 27, respectively,
regarding the Commonwealth’s concerns over Defendant’s potential for flight,
Appellant waited until October 3 to contact him; Defendant’s actions in
violating the terms of his bond were willful; there was no evidence of
mitigation offered by Appellant; and the bail condition violated is extremely
serious, as the opportunity to incarcerate the Defendant for his serious offense
is now jeopardized.
For the foregoing reasons, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
court’s Order denying Appellant’s petition, as Appellant failed to meet her
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that justice demands
setting aside bail forfeiture. In addition, the record reflects the court’s
appropriate consideration of relevant factors consistent with Hann and its
progeny.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/23/2019
- 12 -