State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1528

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Danjuan Onta McClinton,
Defendant,

Midwest Bonding, LLC,
Appellant.

Filed June 4, 2018
Reversed and remanded
Schellhas, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-6510

Michael Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

James McGeeney, Doda & McGeeney, P.A., Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Pres iding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Schellhas, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges a district court orde r that denied as untimely its petition to
reinstate a bail bond. We reverse and remand.

2
FACTS
In March 2016, respondent State of Minnesota charged defendant Danjuan McClinton
under Minn. Stat. § 629.14 (2016), for being “present in . . . Minnesota” after “having been
charged in the State of South Dakota, and having fled that State to avoid prosecution.” The
district court set bail in the amount of $50,000, and appellant Midwest Bonding, LLC posted
a $50,000 appearance bond on McClinton’s behalf on March 11, 2016. McClinton later failed
to appear for his extradition hearing on April 8, 2016, and the district court ordered the bond
forfeited.
In July 2016, Midwest Bondi ng moved to extend the due date of the appearance bond.
On August 17, the district court granted Midwest Bonding “an additional 90 days in which to
bring a petition for reinstatement and discharge of a forfeited bond.” The court’s order also
contained the following language: “The due date is extended to 180 days from the date of the
order of forfeiture: October 10, 2016.”
On October 3, 2016, Midwes t Bonding again moved to exte nd the due date of the
appearance bond and also requested that the district court issue a nationwide arrest warrant
based on information suggesting that McClinton was in Chicago. On October 4, the court
denied the motion, stating in its order that “the due date for reinstatement of [the appearance
bond at issue here] will not be extended beyond the 180 day deadline which is October 10,
2016.” The court also included the following language in its order:
As stated in the Court’s previous order dated August 17, 2016,
no reinstatement of a forfeited bond shall be allowed unless the
petition and affidavit are filed within 180 days from the date of
the order for forfeiture. This is pursuant to Rule 702(f) of the
Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

3
On December 14, 2016, Midwest Bonding pe titioned to reinstate and discharge the
appearance bond. The district court denied the motion, concluding that under Minn. R. Gen.
Pract. 702(f), “no reinstatement of a forfeited bond shall be allowed unless the petition and
affidavit are filed within 180 days from the date of the order for forfeiture.” The court deemed
Midwest Bonding’s petition to be untimely because it was filed after the deadline in previous
orders that “was clearly and unambiguously set as October 10, 2016.”
This appeal follows. 1
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota law provides that when a bail bond is forfeited, the district court “may
forgive or reduce the penalty ac cording to the circumstances of the case and the situation
of the party on any terms and conditions it considers just and reasonable.” Minn. Stat.
§ 629.59 (2016). “Rule 702(f) of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice narrows a court’s
discretion.” State v. Askland, 784 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Minn. 2010). Rule 702(f) provides:
Any motion for reinstatemen t of a forfeited bond or cash
bail shall be supported by a pe tition and affidavit and shall be
filed with the court administrator. A copy of said petition and
affidavit shall be served upon the prosecuting attorney and the
principal of the bond in the manner required by Minn. R. Civ.
P. 4.03(e)(1). A petition for rein statement filed within ninety
(90) days of the date of the or der of forfeiture shall be heard
and determined by the judge who ordered forfeiture, or the
chief judge. Reinstatement may be ordered on such terms and
conditions as the court may require. A petition for
reinstatement filed between ninety (90) days and one hundred
eighty (180) days from date of forfeiture shall be heard and
determined by the judge who ordered forfeiture or the judge’s
successor and reinstatement may be ordered on such terms and
conditions as the court may require, but only with the

1 Respondent State of Minnesota did not file a responsive brief.

4
concurrence of the chief judge and upon the condition that a
minimum penalty of not less th an ten percent (10%) of the
forfeited bail be imposed. No reinstatement of a forfeited bond
or cash bail shall be allowed unl ess the petition and affidavit
are filed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of
the order of forfeiture.

Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 702(f). “But, under both the statute and the rule, the question of
whether to reinstate a forfeited bond is co mmitted to the sound exercise of judicial
discretion.” Askland, 784 N.W.2d at 62.
Here, the district court ordered that the bond posted for McClinton be forfeited after
he failed to appear at his April 8, 2016 extradition hearing. On August 17, the district court
granted Midwest Bonding’s moti on to extend the due date of the appearance bond but
denied its second extension request on October 4. At the same time, the district court also
denied Midwest Bonding’s request for issu ance of a nationwide arrest warrant for
McClinton, despite an affidavit from Midwest Bonding’s representative that stated that
“[i]nformation gathered suggests that [McC linton’s] current loca tion to be Chicago,
Illinois.” The record does not reflect the district court’s reason for denying the request for
a nationwide warrant.
Midwest Bonding argues that because th e district court’s August 17, 2016 order
extended the date for filing a petition for discharge of the bond by 90 days, the district court
erred by concluding that its December 14, 20 16 reinstatement petition was untimely. We
agree.
Although the district court’s August 17, 2016 Order Extending Due Date of
Appearance Bond properly references Minn. R. Gen. Pract. Rule 7 02(f), and states: “The

5
due date is extended to 180 days from the date of the order of forfeiture: October 10,
2016,” it first states “Midwest Bonding, LLC, has an additional 90 days in which to bring
a petition for reinstatement and discharge of a forfeited bond.” This language created an
ambiguity that Midwest Bonding had “an additional 90 days” from the date of the
August 17, 2016 order “in which to bring a petition for reinstatement and discharge of the
forfeited bond.” Or, as Midwest Bonding cont ends, the language c ould be construed to
mean that the district court extended the due date for filing a petition to 90 days from the
original due date of Octobe r 10, 2016. Because the August 17, 2016 order created an
ambiguity with respect to the due date of the appearance bond, we conclude that the district
court abused its discretion by denying Midwest Bonding’s reinstatement petition as
untimely.
Midwest Bonding also contends that the Shetsky factors
2 “weigh in favor of
reinstatement and discharge of the forfeited bail bond.” But in denying Midwest Bonding’s
petition, the district court did not consider the Shetsky factors. We therefore reverse the
district court’s denial of Midwest Bondin g’s petition to reinstat e and discharge the
appearance bond and remand for consideration of the Shetsky factors. See State v. Nelson,
773 N.W.2d 330, 332–33 (Minn. App. 2009) (reversing the district court order reinstating

2 In In re Application of Shetsky , 239 Minn. 463, 471, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (1953), the
supreme court explained that, in determining whether a surety ought to forfeit a portion of
a bond, the following factors are relevant: (1) the purpose of the bail, the civil nature of the
proceedings, and the cause, pur pose, and length of the defendant’s absence; (2) the good
faith of the surety as measured by the fau lt or willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-
faith efforts of the surety—i f any—to apprehend and produc e the defendant; and (4) any
prejudice to the state in its administration of justice.

6
appellant’s bond and discharging it on payment of the penalty on the basis that rule 702(f)
does not require personal service on the princi pal of a bond, but remanding “so that the
district court may revisit its fo rfeiture determination in light of the factors set forth” in
Shetsky).
Reversed and remanded.