26 Cal.App.5th 195
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- William Avignone was charged with multiple counts of grand theft and securities fraud arising from an alleged $786,000 investment scheme; he and his wife solicited investors promising real-estate returns and used funds for personal expenses.
- Avignone previously pled guilty as part of a deal, was sentenced to 5 years 4 months (with portions to be served locally), then successfully withdrew his plea after this court reversed on sentencing grounds.
- Avignone had been released on $100,000 bail from late 2013 through 2017, made every court appearance, did not abscond, and committed no new crimes while on bail; he lived in a camper on a friend’s property and received ongoing medical care for cancer.
- After Avignone withdrew his plea, the superior court increased bail to $300,000, citing changed circumstances: increased exposure to prison time, perceived flight risk, and a purported ongoing danger to the public because of Avignone’s persuasive ability to run new frauds.
- Avignone sought habeas relief arguing the bail increase was an abuse of discretion, violated the state and federal constitutions and the standard articulated in Humphrey (19 Cal.App.5th 1006), which requires individualized consideration of ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Avignone's Argument | People/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether increasing bail from $100,000 to $300,000 was an abuse of discretion under §1289 and the state/federal constitutional right to reasonable bail | Increase was arbitrary; no legitimate change in circumstances; court failed to properly consider ability to pay and relied on speculation | The court properly found changed circumstances (exposure to longer sentence, health improvement, spouse out of custody) and considered danger to public and flight risk | Bail increase was an abuse of discretion and vacated; court must reconsider bail consistent with opinion |
| Whether the superior court complied with Humphrey’s requirement to assess defendant’s ability to pay before setting money bail | Humphrey requires individualized ability-to-pay inquiry; court failed by relying on speculative capacity to raise funds via new frauds | Humphrey was under Supreme Court review and not binding here; court asserts it applied Humphrey and considered alternatives | Court concluded superior court improperly applied Humphrey and improperly assessed ability to pay, rendering the bail amount effectively pretrial detention |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court must determine defendant's ability to pay when setting money bail)
- In re Christie, 92 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App.) (review standard and that bail cannot be set at an amount that is functional equivalent of denial of bail)
- In re Weiner, 32 Cal.App.4th 441 (Cal. Ct. App.) (factors courts must consider in setting bail; public safety primary)
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (Cal.) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
- People v. Avignone, 16 Cal.App.5th 1233 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prior appellate disposition allowing withdrawal of plea and remand on sentencing grounds)