 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Chatfield11/9/2001
inimum sentence. Id. at *2. Cf. American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Monroe County, 644 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (addition of conspiracy, a second degree felony, to a charge of drug trafficking, a first degree felony, substantially increased the penalty the defendant could face and thus materially increased the surety's risk, discharging the bond).
Here, the appearance bond was not formally extended to serve as a bond for the new charge. Thus, surety's risk on the bond remained the same whether or not the new charge was added - surety was to produce defendant on the charge of grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle. There is nothing that distinguishes this case from those discussed above. Nor can it be argued that the new charge materially altered the risk to surety. The new crime carries the same penalty as the original charge. Both 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b) and § 1201(a)(3) carry a penalty of not more than fifteen years imprisonment when death or serious injury results. See id. §§ 1091(b)(3), 1210(e). Thus, this is not a case where the penalty on the second crime charged creates a potential for a life sentence or similarly severe elevation in the potential punishment. Cf. People v. Jones, 873 P.2d 36, 37 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (addition of habitual criminal charges, which carry mandatory life sentence, sufficient to increase materially the risk to surety). Furthermore, both crimes charged involved a death, so there is little to surety's argument that defendant's mind-set was likely changed by the addition of the new charge. We therefore hold that the addition of the new charge was well within the risk assumed by surety when it executed the appearance bond. The court was within its discretion to order bail forfeited.
Affirmed.
|