Commonwealth v. BurkeCommonwealth v. Burke
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Klein
¶ 1 In this case of first impression, Roger Brown as Bail Surety, appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County forfeiting $2,500 surety on behаlf of Henry Charles Burke to the County of Wyoming. We reverse.
¶ 2 At issue here is the tension between
¶3 We first note that our jurisdiction over this matter is assumed pursuant to
¶ 4 Henry Charles Burke was arrested for violations of
¶ 5 On March 14, 2001, Burke was accepted into a program of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD). Various conditions were placed upon Burke for the successful completion of that program. Among the conditions was the payment of certain fees. Burke did not pay thosе fees, leaving a balance of $1,066.60.
¶ 6 The court issued a Rule upon Burke to appear and show cause why his ARD should not be revoked. The Rule was returnable August 8, 2001. Burke faded to appear. The Court revoked Burke’s ARD and set the matter for jury trial on October 15, 2001, 8:30 a.m.
¶ 7 Once again Burke faded to appear. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant has apparently gone un-served. On November 16, 2001, after due notice, 2 and by order of the court, the bail surety issued by Brown on Burke’s behalf was forfeited to Wyoming County. Brown now appeals the order of forfeiture.
¶8 Brown’s argument is simple. He claims that рursuant to the applicable rules, Burke’s bad automaticady terminated upon his acceptance into the ARD program. As such, no bail surety existed when Burke faded to complete his ARD program and subsequently faded to appeal’ for trial. Because no bad surety existed, there was nothing to forfeit and Brown is entitled to the return of the funds.
¶ 9 The applicable rules state:
Upon the judge’s granting of the motion for accelerated rehabilitative disposition, bail shall be tеrminated, and any money or other form of security deposited shall be returned in accordance with the rules pertaining to bail.
When bail is terminatеd upon acceptance of the defendant into the ARD program, such action constitutes a “full and final disposition” for purposes of Rule 534 (Duration of Obligation) and Rule 535 (Receipt of Deposit; Return of Deposit).
Unless bail is revoked, a bail bond shall be valid until the full and final disposition of the сase including all avenues of direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
When bail is terminated upon acceptance of the defendant into an ARD program, such action constitutes a “full and final disposition” for purposes of this rule and Rule 535.
Within 20 days of the full and final dispositiоn of the case, the deposit shall be returned to the depositor, less any bail-related fees or commissions authorized by law, and the reasоnable costs, if any, of administering the percentage cash bail program.
The relevant Comment to Rule 535 repeats the Comment to Rule 534 verbatim.
¶ 10 Brown argues that under the plain reading of the rales, once Burke was accepted into the ARD program his bail automatically terminated аnd the county was obliged to return the surety. He claims that the acceptance into ARD con
¶ 11 The language of the rules is clear. Under Rule 313(E), it is the acceptance of a defendant into an ARD program that is the terminating event regarding bail. Had the rule intended the bail obligation to continue through the completion of the ARD program, it would have sаid so. Thus, under the rules, the bail obligation ended with the agreement to accept Burke into ARD on March 14, 2001. Because bail terminated at that point, thеre was, legally, nothing to forfeit on November 16, 2001.
¶ 12 The Commonwealth argues that the comments to Rules 534 and 535 state: “When bail is terminated...,” meaning the termination of the bail obligation is conditioned upon court order. As no such order was ever issued, bail never terminated. This interpretation ignores the mandatоry language of Rule 313 which states that upon acceptance into ARD “bail shall be terminated” and “any money.. .shall be returned.” We interpret the wоrd “when,” as used in the commentary to Rules 534 and 535, therefore, to refer not to the condition of the entry of a court order, but to the condition of аcceptance into ARD. That condition was met.
¶ 13 Finally, the Commonwealth argues that Commonwealth v. Horce, 726 A.2d 1067 (Pa.Super.1999), holds the contractual language of the surety agreement reflects an agrеement that the posted bond continues until full disposition of the case or actual forfeiture of the bond. We agree. While there has been nо full and final disposition of the criminal charges against Burke, the rules clearly state that for purposes of bail, acceptance into ARD does constitute a full and final disposition. As that full and final disposition occurred some nine months prior to the forfeiture order, there was, in fact, nothing to forfeit.
¶ 14 Aso, the trial court opines that had Brown simply filed a motion once Burke had been accepted into ARD, it most likely would have returned the surety. We do not doubt this. However, nowhere in the rules is the return of bail conditioned upon the filing of a motion. We will not interpret the rules to require a motiоn be filed in this circumstance.
¶ 15 Finally, while not stated overtly in its brief, the Commonwealth appears to believe that it makes little sense to terminate bаil for a defendant until he has successfully completed an ARD program. We are sympathetic to this argument and agree that it is sensible, but the clear language of the rules requires a different outcome. When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to bе disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
¶ 16 Order reversed. Bail bond to bе returned Brown in accordance with Rule 535(D). Jurisdiction relinquished.