This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.