Jeglum violated a condition of his cash bail by failing to
appear at multiple court hearings. The State requested
forfeiture of the cash bail. The trial court reserved ruling
on the request. Eventually, Mr. Jeglum pleaded guilty and was
sentenced. More than one year later, the trial court denied
the State's request. In denying the State's request,
the trial court construed existing law as preventing
forfeiture of cash bail once an accused reappears in court.
question before us is whether the trial court abused its
discretion by misconstruing existing law. We conclude it did.
We hold that if an accused has violated a condition of cash
bail, a trial court has discretion to forfeit cash bail even
after the accused reappears in court and even after entry of
the judgment and sentence.
reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for it to
exercise its discretion to determine whether to forfeit Mr.
Jeglum's cash bail and, if so, the appropriate amount.
February 10, 2015, the State charged Edward Jeglum with
felony stalking and two misdemeanor counts of violation of a
no-contact order. The trial court set bail at $100, 000. Mr.
Jeglum posted $100, 000 cash bail and was warned that failure
to appear in court would result in the immediate forfeiture
of the bail money.
August 31, the trial court signed an order modifying Mr.
Jeglum's release conditions to allow him to travel to
Arizona in November to attend scheduled medical appointments.
The order provided that further requests for out-of-state
travel would require prior court approval.
November 30, Mr. Jeglum appeared in court and the court reset
his trial readiness hearing to January 20, 2016, and his
trial date to February 9, 2016. Mr. Jeglum failed to appear
for his January readiness hearing.
February 17, 2016, the trial court held a hearing to discuss
Mr. Jeglum's absence. At the hearing, defense counsel
submitted a letter ostensibly signed by a nurse practitioner
and a physician stating that Mr. Jeglum was currently
residing in a licensed assisted living home and that travel
was not recommended. Defense counsel told the court he had
been in contact with the doctor, and the doctor was Mr.
Jeglum's primary care physician.
when the State called the telephone number on the letter, the
State learned that the number was for a storage unit company.
The State requested a warrant and bail forfeiture. The trial
court reserved ruling on the State's requests and
scheduled a hearing for March 3, for Mr. Jeglum to provide
more specific information. The trial court ordered that Mr.
Jeglum's doctor be available by telephone to testify at
Jeglum sent a facsimile to the court an hour before the March
hearing. Mr. Jeglum confirmed his knowledge of the hearing,
but asserted that the doctor who had earlier signed the
letter was not his doctor, the doctor had never spoken to him
or examined him, and he did not consent to releasing any
patient healthcare information. The facsimile made it clear
that Mr. Jeglum had committed a fraud on the court.
trial court granted the State's request for a warrant,
but again reserved ruling on the State's request for bail
forfeiture. A bail bondsman for Mr. Jeglum's other
pending felony matters flew to Arizona, took Mr. Jeglum into
custody, and surrendered him to the Chelan County jail.
March 14, the State once again requested bail forfeiture. The
trial court reserved ruling on the State's request, but
substantially increased bail.
Jeglum soon after pleaded guilty and the parties recommended
one month in jail. The trial court refused to accept the
recommendation and sentenced Mr. Jeglum to nine months in
jail. The court explained, "Frankly, Mr. Jeglum, I feel
like you have made a mockery of the legal system. You have
dragged out these legal proceedings beyond a point that I
would have thought would have been possible." Report of
Proceedings (3/3/16, 3/14/16, 3/22/16, 1/18/18) (RP) at 57.
Once again the court reserved ruling on the State's bail
forfeiture request. It ...