People ex rel. McManus v. Horn, 18 N.Y.3d 660 (2012)
New York Criminal Procedure Law 520.10(2)(b) requires a court to designate at least two forms of bail, offered in the alternative, and prohibits a court from setting cash-only bail.
Summary
Shaun McManus was arrested for arson and related offenses while on parole. After violating an order of protection, bail was set at $20,000 cash only. McManus challenged this, arguing that CPL 520.10(2)(b) requires at least two forms of bail. The lower courts upheld the cash-only bail. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute mandates a court offer at least two alternative forms of bail, to ensure flexible options for pretrial detainees who are presumed innocent. The court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to reform restrictive bail practices.
Facts
Shaun McManus was arrested for arson and related offenses against a victim while on parole. After initially posting bail, he violated an order of protection against the same victim by threatening him with weapons. At arraignment for the new charges, bail was set. Subsequently, McManus was indicted based on the initial incidents. The Supreme Court then ordered bail to be set at $20,000 “CASH ONLY.”
Procedural History
After the Supreme Court set bail at $20,000 cash only and denied a motion to increase it, McManus was unable to secure a bail bond. He sought alteration of the bail ruling, which was denied. McManus then commenced a CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the cash-only bail was illegal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether CPL 520.10(2)(b) prohibits a court from designating only one form of bail, specifically cash only, or whether the statute allows a court the discretion to mandate a single form of bail.
Holding
Yes, CPL 520.10(2)(b) prohibits a court from fixing only one form of bail because the statute’s language and legislative purpose indicate that a defendant is entitled to at least two alternative choices for bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals analyzed the language of CPL 520.10(2)(b), which refers to “any one of two or more of the forms” of bail. While acknowledging the District Attorney’s argument that the statute’s reference to a singular “form” of bail and the use of “may” could suggest judicial discretion to impose a single type of bail, the Court found McManus’s interpretation more consistent with the statute’s overall structure and legislative purpose.
The Court reasoned that the inclusion of “may” in both subdivisions (2)(a) and (2)(b) was to allow the court discretion between two methods of fixing bail: setting an amount without specifying a form (allowing the accused to choose an unsecured bond) or specifying the forms of bail (requiring at least two options). The Court stated, “Providing flexible bail alternatives to pretrial detainees—who are presumptively innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—is consistent with the underlying purpose of article 520.”
The Court highlighted the legislative intent behind CPL 520.10, which was to reform the restrictive bail scheme under the former Code of Criminal Procedure to improve pretrial release availability. The Court further explained that if a court believes a substantial personal undertaking is necessary, CPL 520.10(2)(b) allows the court to order a higher cash bail alongside another form of bail that is virtually indistinguishable. For example, the court could order a high cash bail along with a high partially-secured appearance bond requiring a 10% deposit.
The Court also addressed the argument regarding cases where courts order $1 cash bail, explaining that this is done for the defendant’s benefit, allowing credit for time served. The Court concluded by stating, “For these reasons, we hold that CPL 520.10 (2) (b) prohibits a court from fixing only one form of bail.”