State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1074

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Michelle Kristine Boyd,
Defendant,

Liberty Bail Bond Agency,
Appellant.

Filed April 17, 2023
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-20-12209

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota ; and

Kristyn Anderson, Minneapolis City Attorney, Michelle E. Johnson, Assistant City
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Richard A. Bowen, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant, a bonding company, challenges the district court’s denial of its petition
to reinstate a forfeited bail bond, arguing that the district court erred by not discharging the
2
bond at the time the defendant was sentenced and by assigning the petition to a judge other
than the forfeiting judge or the chief judge, and abused its discretion by denying appellant’s
reinstatement petition. Because we see no error and no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
In May 2020, respondent the City of Minneapolis charged M.B. with driving after
cancellation—inimical to public safety, careless driving, and driving with no insurance.
M.B. did not appear for hearings scheduled in June 2020, February 2021, March 2021, and
June 2021. Bench warrants were issued.
In July 2021, appellant Liberty Bail Bonds Agency posted a $3,000 appearance
bond to ensure M.B.’s appearance at future hearings. M.B. signed a form stating that she
was required to attend court at 9:00 on September 17, 2021, and that she and the Roche
Surety and Casualty Company would be required to pay the district court $3,000 if she
failed to appear. She also signed a form that stated, “If you fail to report for court as
directed, a bench warrant may be issued for your arrest.”
M.B. did not appear at court on September 17, 2021, and a bench warrant was issued
with a bail amount of $5,000. A district court judge (the forfeiting judge) directed
forfeiture of the $3,000 bond appellant had posted previously, and the chief judge issued
an order forfeiting the bond.
In October 2021, M.B. was taken into custody in Goodhue County on a bench
warrant for failing to appear in another case. After appellant notified Goodhue County and
let them know of the outstanding warrants on her in Hennepin County, M.B. was released
on the Goodhue County warrant to appear on the Hennepin County warrant.
3
On October 12, 2021, appellant filed a petition to reinstate and discharge the
forfeited bail bond. The supporting affidavit stated that, when appellant was notified of
M.B.’s failure to appear, appellant attempted unsuccessfully to call M.B. and her family
members, went to her last known address, went to places where she was known to have
been, and conducted a skip trace, or online search, none of which located or apprehended
M.B.
On October 13, 2021, a different judge (the bail bond judge) was assigned to handle
the bail bond petition. On October 14, 2021, M.B. appeared in Hennepin County before
another district court judge (the sentencing judge), who sentenced her and resolved her
case.
In December 2021, the bail bond judge issued an order denying appellant’s motion
to reinstate the bond and granting the motion to discharge the bond. That order was
superseded by a March 2022 order in which the bail bond judge clarified that the bond
would be discharged only after it was paid in full.
Appellant requested a hearing. In June 2022, following the hearing, the bail bond
judge issued an order. She found that the discharge of the bond had not been required at
sentencing, determined that the assignment of the bail bond judge was appropriate and that
she had the authority to decide the reinstatement petition, and denied the petition.
Appellant challenges that order, arguing that (1) the sentencing judge should have
discharged the bond when M.B. was sentenced, (2) Hennepin County’s practice of
assigning a bail bond judge who was neither the forfeiting judge nor the chief judge to
4
decide issues on the bond violates Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 702(f), and (3) the bail bond judge
abused its discretion by denying appellant’s reinstatement petition.
DECISION
1. Timing of the Discharge
Appellant’s argument on this point is limited to asserting that “there is no question
[that] all elements for sentencing of [M.B. were] completed. The petition for the
reinstatement and discharge of the bail bond should have been heard at that time. This is
the standard practice that takes place at the time of sentencing.” Appellant provides neither
statutory nor caselaw support for the view that the sentencing judge is responsible for
hearing petitions for the reinstatement and discharge of bail bonds. There is no indication
that either appellant or M.B. asked that the petition, filed just one day before sentencing,
be addressed at sentencing, and there was no error on the part of the sentencing judge in
not addressing it.
2. Assignment of Judges to Hear Bond Issues
The construction of the general rules of practice is subject to de novo review. Cmty.
Cares v. Faulkner, 949 N.W.2d 296, 297 (Minn. App. 2020), rev. denied, (Minn. Nov. 17,
2020).
Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 702(f) provides that “[a] petition for reinstatement . . . shall be
heard and determined by the judge who ordered the forfeiture, or the chief judge.” But in
2018 Hennepin County enacted the “Fourth Judicial District Standing Order re Assignment
and Services of Board Reinstatement Petitions,” which provides that, pursuant to the
authority granted to the chief judge by Minn. Stat. § 484.69, subd. 3 (2018), “bond
5
reinstatement petitions filed in the Fourth Judicial District shall be assigned to judges in
accordance with the applicable Fourth District Bench Policy.”
Appellant disagrees with the standing order, relying on Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 702(f)
to argue that the proper judge to have decided the bond issue was not the bail bond judge
but either the forfeiture judge or the chief judge. But even if the appointment of a bail bond
judge to handle bond issues were an error, it was a harmless error: appellant has shown no
prejudice as a result. “Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds
exist for reversal.” Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987); Minn. R.
Civ. P. 61 (providing that courts are to disregard any error that does not “affect the
substantial rights of the parties”).1
3. Denial of the Petition to Reinstate
This court reviews the denial of a petition to reinstate a forfeited bail bond for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Askland, 784 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Minn. 2010). Askland quotes
the four factors set out in In re Shetsky, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (Minn. 1953), for evaluating
petitions for bond reinstatement: (A) the purpose of bail, (B) the good faith of the bond
company as measured by the fault or willfulness of the defendant; (C) the good faith efforts
of the bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant, and (D) the prejudice to the
state in its administration of justice. Appellant has the burden of proving that the first three
factors weigh in favor of reinstatement. See Askland, 784 N.W.2d at 62.

1See also State v. Banks, No. A22-0774, 2022 WL 17574948 (Minn. App. Dec. 12, 2022),
(a nonprecedential decision rejecting appellant’s argument and upholding the Hennepin
County policy of appointing judges to handle bond reinstatement petitions.)
6
As to the purpose of bail, the bail bond judge, having found that a bond was posted
in July 2021 to secure Boyd’s appearance in September 2021; that she did not appear, thus
frustrating the bond’s purpose; and that law enforcement did apprehend her after about two
weeks, concluded that “[t]he relatively small duration of [ M.B.’s] absence slightly favors
reinstatement.”
As to appellant’s good faith measured by M.B.’s willfulness or fault, the district
court found that no one explained her absence and that appellant submitted no evidence
that it had tried to remind M.B. of her court appearance. However, M.B. did have notice
and willfully failed to appear. The bail bond judge concluded that her willful absence was
attributable to appellant and weighed against reinstatement, as did appellant’s failure to
ensure her appearance.
As to appellant’s good-faith effort to locate M.B., the district court found that, when
appellant learned the bond had been revoked, it tried unsuccessfully to call M.B. and her
family, then hired an agent to locate her. The agent conducted a skip trace, went to M.B.’s
last known address, and went to places where she was known to have been. No details
were provided as to the extent or frequency of any of these activities, or as to their cost to
appellant. See State v. Vang, 763 N.W.2d 354, 359 (Minn. App. 2009) (criticizing failure
to provide information on expenses incurred in attempt to find defendant). Moreover,
appellant provided no information as to whether or how its activities assisted or resulted in
apprehending M.B. Appellant has not met its burden of proving this factor weighs in favor
of reinstatement.
7
Finally, as to the prejudice to the state, the bail bond judge found there was no
evidence that the state was prejudiced except for the delay and the expense of law
enforcement in apprehending M.B. and concluded that “[b]ecause [M.B.] pled guilty and
has been sentenced in the above-entitled case, it is appropriate to discharge the bond but
only after [appellant] pays the bond amount in full.”
The bail bond judge did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant’s petition to
reinstate the forfeited bond.
Affirmed.