*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAY GARCIA (AC 39851) Alvord, Sheldon and Keller, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff in error, A Co., a bail bonds company, brought this writ of error from the decision of the trial court denying a motion it had filed for discharge from its obligation under a certain bond that it had executed to obtain the release from custody pending trial of a criminal defendant, G, who had absconded to Peru. Following G’s failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing, G was ordered rearrested and his bond for- feited. In seeking the discharge of its obligation under the bond, A Co. claimed that the bond was issued by certain of its agents who were not authorized to issue bonds. A Co. also filed a motion to compel the defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, to seek extradition of G because, according to A Co., the state previously had promised to do so, and the trial court denied that motion. The trial court found that A Co. had failed to demonstrate good cause to be relieved of its bond obligations as required by the applicable rule of practice (§ 38-23) and that the state was under no obligation to pursue extradition. Held: 1. The trial court, in denying A Co.’s motion for discharge from its obligation under the bail bond, applied the correct legal standard as set forth in Taylor v. Taintor (83 U.S. [16 Wall.] 366), which provides that a surety will be discharged of its obligation on a bail bond for good cause only when the performance of the condition of the bond is rendered impossi- ble by an act of God, an act of the obligee, which, in this case, is the state, or an act of law: our Supreme Court previously has applied the rule in Taylor for determining whether a surety has provided good cause ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals