NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. OCTAVIANO HARO-GALVEZ, third party surety, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 18-0202 FILED 11-27-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2017-110891-002 The Honorable Thomas Kaipio, Judge Pro Tempore JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Kimberly Felcyn Counsel for Appellee Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC, Scottsdale By Gregory B. Collins Counsel for Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. STATE v. HARO-GALVEZ Decision of the Court W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Octaviano Haro-Galvez appeals from the superior court’s order forfeiting the appearance bond he posted for his son, Jayro Haro- Lopez (“Defendant”). For the following reasons, we vacate the bond forfeiture and remand to the superior court with a direction to exonerate the bond. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In March 2017, Defendant was charged in Maricopa County Superior Court with several felony offenses. On March 11, Haro-Galvez posted a $30,000 cash bond, and Defendant was released from custody. Immediately thereafter, Defendant was taken into federal custody on charges of “reentry of removed alien.” Because Defendant was in federal custody, he failed to appear on April 7 at a hearing in the superior court. The superior court issued a bench warrant and set a bond forfeiture hearing. Defendant remained in federal custody until July 14, when he was returned to the custody of the State, where he has remained to date. ¶3 Haro-Galvez appeared to contest the forfeiture of the bond, requesting the superior court find that Defendant’s non-appearance while in federal custody for a crime that pre-dated the charged Arizona offenses was excused. See generally Ariz. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”) 7.6(c). Additionally, Haro-Galvez requested the bond be exonerated because Defendant was then in state custody. See generally Rule 7.6(d). After a hearing, the court denied both requests. Following entry of a judgment of bond forfeiture, Haro-Galvez timely appealed. ¶4 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(1). ANALYSIS ¶5 The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to ensure a criminal defendant appears at court proceedings. State v. Bail Bonds USA, 223 Ariz. 394, 397, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (citing State v. Garcia Bail Bonds, 201 Ariz. 203, 208, ¶ 19 (App. 2001)). We review de novo the interpretation of court rules and statutes. E.g., Cranmer v. State, 204 Ariz. 299, 301, ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (citations omitted). 2 STATE v. HARO-GALVEZ Decision of the Court I. Forfeiture ¶6 The superior court has discretion to forfeit all or part of an appearance bond if the defendant violates the bond and the violation is not excused. Rule 7.6(c). The court abuses its discretion by making an error of law or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals