Saunders v. Hornecker
344 P.3d 771
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Petitioners Amos, Dwyer, and Saunders were jailed on cash-only bonds in Fremont County after failing to post; bonds were $2,000, $500, and $100,000 respectively.
- Petitions sought a Wyoming constitutional and procedural interpretation declaring cash-only bail impermissible.
- Court noted mootness concerns because two petitioners had been released and convictions entered, but retained jurisdiction to decide under exception for issues likely to evade review.
- Court converted habeas petitions to a writ of certiorari under Rule 18.02, finding constitutional question suitable for certiorari due to public significance.
- Court held cash-only bail does not violate Article 1, Section 14 or Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 46.1(a), provided bail is not excessive.
- Rule 46.1’s other provisions remain consistent with allowing cash-only bail as a pretrial release condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'sufficient sureties' prohibit cash-only bail under Article 1, Section 14 and Rule 46.1? | Amos argues 'sureties' means third-party bondsmen; cash-only bail violates the clause. | State argues 'sufficient sureties' is broad, permitting various securities including cash. | Cash-only bail permissible under a broad reading of 'sufficient sureties'. |
| Is habeas corpus the proper vehicle, or was certiorari conversion necessary, given mootness and public importance? | Petitioners seek habeas relief from this Court for constitutional questions. | State contends habeas relief is jurisdictional; conversion to certiorari may be appropriate. | Conversion to writ of certiorari appropriate; issues reviewed on certiorari. |
| Does cash-only bail violate Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 46.1(a)? | Cash-only bail conflicts with 'sufficient sureties' meaning. | Rule is interpreted in pari materia with the Constitution; cash-on-demand allowed. | Rule 46.1(a) compatible with cash-only bail under broad 'sufficient sureties' interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigil v. State, 563 P.2d 1344 (Wyo.1977) (bail purposes and mootness considerations on appeal)
- Brooks v. State, 604 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. 2000) (broad vs. narrow 'surety' interpretations; Minnesota’s approach)
- Briggs v. State, 666 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 2003) (broad interpretation supporting cash bail for appearance)
- Fragoso v. Fell, 111 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (sufficient sureties doctrine allows cash when practical)
- State v. Gutierres, 140 P.3d 1106 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (sufficient sureties includes varied forms; no strict third-party limit)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (right to pretrial release conditioned on appearance; not excessive)