State of Minnesota v. Marquis Deonte Gardner, Midwest Bonding, LLC

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1899

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Marquis Deonte Gardner,
Defendant,

Midwest Bonding, LLC,
Appellant.

Filed April 22, 2024
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-21-18316

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Adam Petras, Assistant County Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Halbrooks,

Judge. *

*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

WORKE, Judge

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying its petition

to reinstate and discharge an unconditional bail bond. We affirm.

FACTS

On October 1, 2021, respondent State of Minnesota charged defendant Marquis

Deonte Gardner with being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. The district

court set Gardner’s conditional-release bond at $30,000 and his unconditional-release bond

at $60,000. On October 4, 2021, Gardner posted a $30,000 bond using appellant Midwest

Bonding, LLC. Gardner was released the next day. On October 21, 2021, Gardner posted

another $30,000 bond using Midwest Bonding.

In December 2021, a conditional-release-violation report was filed. It alleged that

Gardner failed to maintain contact with probation and included information that Gardner

was involved in a shooting. The district court ordered the issuance of a bench warrant.

On March 20, 2023, Gardner failed to appear for trial. The district court filed two

orders forfeiting the $30,000 bonds because the bonds were posted on the condition that

Gardner make all court appearances.

On March 23, 2023, Gardner was apprehended. He was charged with second-degree

murder and attempted second-degree murder for an offense that occurred on February 21,

2023. Gardner again posted bond using Midwest Bonding—$800,000 for the new charges

and $100,000 for the prohibited-person case.

2
 In May 2023, Midwest Bonding filed a petition to reinstate and discharge the bonds.

In an attached affidavit, Midwest Bonding attested that it had initiated contact with Gardner

on March 16, 2023, to ensure Gardner’s appearance for trial, and Gardner “accepted

notification of the hearing date through an automated appointment reminder voice

messaging system.” Midwest Bonding further stated that on March 22, 2023, after

receiving notice of the bond forfeiture, it began efforts to locate Gardner. When efforts

were unsuccessful, Midwest Bonding hired a professional fugitive recovery agency to

locate and apprehend Gardner. During the agency’s investigation, it was revealed that

Gardner was in custody, having been arrested by the Minnesota State Patrol on March 23,

2023, just three days after he failed to appear.

The state opposed Midwest Bonding’s petition to reinstate and discharge the bonds.

The district court denied Midwest Bonding’s petition. The district court concluded that the

Shetsky factors did not support a finding consistent with reinstatement and discharge of the

bonds. See Shetsky v. Hennepin County (In re Shetsky), 60 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1953). This

appeal followed.

DECISION

Midwest Bonding argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying its

petition to reinstate and discharge the bonds. See State v. Askland, 784 N.W.2d 60, 62

(Minn. 2010) (stating that appellate courts review district court’s denial of petition for

reinstatement of forfeited bond for abuse of discretion). “A district court abuses its

discretion when it bases its conclusions on an erroneous view of the law.” Id.

3
 When determining whether to reinstate a bond, a district court should consider four

factors, known as the Shetsky factors:

(1) the purpose of bail, the civil nature of the proceedings, and
the cause, purpose and length of a defendant’s absence; (2) the
good faith of the bond company as measured by the fault or
willfulness of the defendant; (3) the good-faith efforts of the
bond company to apprehend and produce the defendant; and
(4) any prejudice to the [s]tate in its administration of justice.

Id. As the petitioning party, Midwest Bonding carried the burden of establishing that the

first, second, and third factors favor reinstatement. See id. The state bore the burden of

showing prejudice. Id. Midwest Bonding argues that, in denying its petition, the district

court failed to fully consider the Shetsky factors. We address each.

Purpose of bail and length of defendant’s absence

The first factor addresses the purpose of bail. The main purposes served by bonds

are to relieve the defendant of pretrial imprisonment, to relieve the state of the burden of

detaining the defendant, and to encourage a surety to ensure a defendant’s presence at trial

without delaying the administration of justice. State v. Storkamp, 656 N.W.2d 539, 541

(Minn. 2003).

The district court determined that the purpose of a bond is to ensure court

appearances and that the defendant remains law-abiding, neither of which occurred here.

Midwest Bonding argues that this factor favors reinstatement because Gardner was arrested

just three days after he failed to appear for trial. But Gardner failed to maintain contact in

December. And Gardner also allegedly committed another offense—murder—while on

release. While three days is not a lengthy absence, the district court properly determined

4
that Midwest Bonding failed to show that this factor favored reinstatement and discharge

of the bonds under these circumstances.

Good faith of bond company measured by fault of defendant

The next factor considers the good faith of the bond company measured by the fault

or willfulness of the defendant. When the defendant “willfully does not meet the conditions

of his . . . bond without a justifiable excuse, this misconduct is attributable to the surety.”

Id. at 542. The district court determined that Gardner’s conduct was attributable to

Midwest Bonding because he willfully failed to meet the conditions of his bond—he failed

to appear, and he allegedly committed another offense while on bond.

The fact that Gardner was arrested three days after he failed to appear for trial does

not alleviate his willfulness in failing to appear. Midwest Bonding provided no justifiable

excuse for Gardner’s failure to appear. And but for this arrest after allegedly committing

a murder, it is unknown how long Gardner would have avoided his required appearance.

The district court properly determined that Midwest Bonding failed to show that this factor

favored reinstatement and discharge of the bonds.

Good-faith efforts of bond company to apprehend and produce defendant

The third factor considers the good-faith efforts of the bond company to apprehend

and produce the defendant. Id. Here, the district court questioned Midwest Bonding’s

efforts to locate Gardner when he failed to appear. The district court also noted that

Midwest Bonding’s petition used boilerplate language that lacked specificity and

substance.

5
 Midwest Bonding argues that it did not have much time to exert efforts to apprehend

Gardner because he was arrested just three days after his failed appearance. But Midwest

Bonding had no hand in apprehending and producing Gardner. Despite the short period of

time in which Midwest Bonding had to act, Gardner’s history of failing to maintain contact,

and Midwest Bonding’s knowledge that Gardner had failed to maintain contact in

December, there was reason to believe that ensuring Gardner’s presence might be difficult.

Midwest Bonding could have, therefore, been more preemptive in doing so. The district

court properly determined that Midwest Bonding failed to show that this factor favored

reinstatement and discharge of the bonds.

Prejudice to state

The fourth factor addresses the prejudice to the state in administering justice. This

factor considers the prejudice to the state in prosecuting the defendant. Askland, 784

N.W.2d at 63. “[R]elief from forfeiture will not be granted whe[n] the prosecution has

been deprived of proof by delay or has otherwise been adversely affected.” Shetsky,

60 N.W.2d at 45.

Here, Gardner failed to appear for trial. The state asserted that it was prepared for

trial. In its memorandum opposing the petition, the state explained that it “dedicated time

and resources in preparing for trial by subpoenaing witnesses, organizing exhibits, meeting

with witnesses, etc.” The district court determined that the state was prepared for trial on

the day that Gardner failed to appear and was thereby prejudiced. Dedicating time in

preparation for a trial that is then delayed adversely affects the state. The district court

6
properly determined that the state showed prejudice. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying Midwest Bonding’s petition to reinstate and discharge the bonds.

Affirmed.

7