Chuuk v Dawe [2019] FMCSC 5; 22 FSM R. 415 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2019) (20 August 2019)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
CSSC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 057-2018

CHUUK STATE
Plaintiff,

vs.

MANERO (ANDON) DAWE,
Defendant.
___________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION ON SURETY RADSON SHOTARO

Jayson Robert
Associate Justice

Decided: August 20, 2019

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Redeemer Nelson
State Prosecutor
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Surety: Charleston Bravo
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Contracts - Surety
A surety contract is a contract between the court and a third party, the surety, under which the surety ensures that the criminal defendant will appear before the court for all court proceedings and complies with all other terms listed - in exchange for the court granting the defendant freedom from incarceration until the court’s final judgment. The contract ends, at latest, when the defendant is sentenced - although it may end earlier. Chuuk v. Dawe, 22 FSM R. 415, 416 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2019).

Contracts - Surety
When the State has not made any allegations that the criminal defendant violated his conditions of release before he was sentenced, but merely alleged that the defendant failed to abide by the conditions of his suspended sentence, the surety is not obligated for a breach of the surety contract because the surety contract expired when the defendant was sentenced and the surety had no duty to ensure that the defendant fulfilled the conditions of his suspended sentence. Chuuk v. Dawe, 22 FSM R. 415, 416 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2019).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

JAYSON ROBERT, Associate Justice:

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending his trial, Manero Dawe was released on a surety bond signed by Radson Shotaro on October 18, 2019. This Court’s records indicate that Dawe dutifully appeared at all proceedings and complied with all the terms of the bond during the entire period the proceeded this Court’s sentencing.

Dawe ultimately plead guilty to malicious mischief and the Court accepted the Plea on January 24, 2019. The Court issued a three months suspended sentence and required Dawe to pay a $25 fine and $175 restitution to the victim in this case before April 24, 2019 amongst other conditions. Neither the plea agreement nor the Judgment evidenced any legally binding promise from Shotaro so as to ensure that Dawe complies with the restitution terms and the fine.

Dawe completed his suspended sentence, never paid the fine or restitution amount, and is presently outside this Court’s jurisdiction.

On July 18, 2019, the State motioned to pursue Shotaro, as Dawe’s surety.

II. ISSUE

1. 1. Whether a surety contract for conditions of release prior to trial terminates at the time of a defendant’s sentencing.
   

III. LAW

A surety contract, by nature, is a contract between the Court and a third party, the surety. Under this contract, the Surety ensures that the criminal Defendant appears before the Court for all of its proceedings and complies with all other terms listed - in exchange for the Court granting freedom to the Defendant from incarceration until the Court’s final judgment. The contract ends, at latest, at the moment the Defendant is sentenced - although it may end earlier.

IV. ANALYSIS

The State has not made any allegations of violations to the conditions of release of the Defendant prior to his sentencing. The State merely alleged that the Dawe failed to abide by the conditions of his suspended sentence. As the surety contract expired at that time of sentencing, Shotaro no longer had any duty to ensure that the Defendant fulfilled the conditions of his suspended sentence. Thus, as a matter of law, the motion to obligate Shotaro fails for no breach of the surety contract was alleged while the contract was still in effect.

V. CONCLUSION

This Court holds that a surety contract for conditions of release prior to trial terminates at the time of a defendant’s sentencing. No hearing is required for this motion. It fails on its face as a matter of law.

* * * *