Anthony Michael Pisano v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Anthony Michael Pisano,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-13549
Order
Date of Order: January 31, 2020
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-14-07343CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
This case is before us for a fourth time on a bail appeal. The defendant,
Anthony Michael Pisano, is charged, inter alia, with three counts of first-degree murder
and one count of third-degree assault and is awaiting trial. We have previously
remanded Pisano’s case three times to the trial court to reconsider the monetary
component of Pisano’s bail.
Prior to Pisano’s first bail appeal, the trial court set an all-cash monetary
bail of $1,300,000 — comprised of a $900,000 cash performance bond and a $400,000
cash appearance bond. The court also imposed the following conditions of bail release:
24-hour supervision by a third-party custodian; 24-hour electronic monitoring through
Alaska Pretrial Services; and house arrest with passes only for verified court, medical,
and attorney appointments.
Pisano appealed the monetary component of his bail. Based on the record
that was then before us, we were unable to determine why the court concluded that the
monetary amounts imposed were the least restrictive amounts necessary to reasonably
assure Pisano’s appearance and the safety of the public, particularly given the other

Pisano v. State - p. 2
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
components of Pisano’s supervision plan.1 We remanded Pisano’s case to the trial court
to reconsider the monetary component of Pisano’s bail.2
Following additional hearings on remand, the court reduced Pisano’s
monetary bail to a $500,000 cash performance bond and a $250,000 cash appearance
bond.
In Pisano’s second bail appeal, we held that the trial court had erred on
remand in speculating about the possibility that Pisano could raise bail money through
financial contributions from crowd-funding sources.3 We also expressed continuing
concerns about the high monetary bail — and in particular, the large, all-cash appearance
bond.4
Following additional hearings, the court declined to lower Pisano’s
monetary bail. As a result, bail remained set at $750,000 — comprised of a $500,000
cash performance bond and a $250,000 cash appearance bond — in addition to all the
previously-imposed conditions of bail.
In Pisano’s third bail appeal, we directed the trial court to convert Pisano’s
appearance bond from an all-cash bond to a cash-corporate bond.5 Additionally, in light
1 Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13089 (Order dated May 24, 2018), at
6-7.
2 Id. at 10-11.
3 Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13289 (Order dated Jan. 16, 2019), at
3-4.
4 Id. at 5-7.
5 Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13453 (Order dated Sept. 23, 2019), at
5-8.

Pisano v. State - p. 3
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
of errors in the trial court’s factual findings, we again remanded Pisano’s case for
reconsideration of the total monetary bail amount imposed.6
Following our most recent order, the trial court on remand converted
Pisano’s $250,000 all-cash appearance bond to a cash-corporate bond. The court held
an additional hearing, and in a written order that followed, the court maintained Pisano’s
bail — a $500,000 cash performance bond and a $250,000 cash-corporate appearance
bond.
In the current appeal, Pisano argues that the trial court failed to adequately
reconsider the total amount of his monetary bail, as directed by our most recent order.
We have reviewed the bail hearing on remand and the trial judge’s latest
order. At the hearing, the judge heard arguments from both parties about the proper
amount of monetary bail; no new evidence was presented. The court stated that it would
take the matter under advisement.
In its subsequent written order, the court expressly stated that it had
reconsidered the total amount of monetary bail in the case, and had concluded that the
amounts set were the least restrictive amounts necessary to reasonably assure Pisano’s
appearance and the safety of the public. The court acknowledged that Pisano had
disclosed that extended family members provided the funds to retain private counsel, but
the court concluded that Pisano’s financial status remained inconclusive absent any
indication of the specific monetary amounts or sources.
As we stated in our order on Pisano’s first bail appeal, the determination
of appropriate bail conditions is in large measure a discretionary function of the trial
6 Id. at 12.

Pisano v. State - p. 4
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
court.7 Thus, absent a legal error, we review a trial court’s decision to impose a
particular bail amount for an abuse of discretion.8 Under this standard, an appellate court
must uphold the trial judge’s decision unless it was “arbitrary, capricious, manifestly
unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive.”9
Here, having reviewed the entire record of bail proceedings over the life of
this case, we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to impose this
monetary bail. While we agree with the principles discussed in the dissent, and we
recognize that other judges might reasonably have imposed a lower monetary bail given
the other protective measures in place for Pisano’s release, the trial court’s imposition
of a high monetary bail in this triple homicide case is not manifestly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s bail order.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
7 See Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13089 (Order dated May 24, 2018),
at 5.
8 AS 12.30.030(a).
9 See Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (quotations and citations omitted).

Pisano v. State - p. 5
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
Judge WOLLENBERG, dissenting.
Article I, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles criminal defendants
“to be released on bail, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the
presumption great[.]”1 Although criminal defendants do not have an absolute right to
monetary bail in an amount they can post,2 both the United States and Alaska
Constitutions prohibit the imposition of “excessive” bail.3 Excessive bail is that which
goes beyond the amount actually necessary to fulfill the purposes of bail — i.e., to
reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community.4 Stated
differently, the court is required to impose the “least restrictive condition or conditions
that will reasonably assure the person’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons,
and the community.”5
I am not convinced that, over the life of these appeals, the superior court
employed an analysis that holistically examined the “least restrictive” bail conditions that
1 At the most recent bail hearing in this case, the prosecutor stated that a trial court
could set a “no bail” order in a first-degree murder case. But we have previously ruled that
a “no bail” presumption violates the Alaska Constitution. Hamburg v. State, 434 P.3d 1165
(Alaska App. 2018).
2 Gilbert v. State, 540 P.2d 485, 486 n.12 (Alaska 1975) (citing Reeves v. State, 411
P.2d 212 (Alaska 1966)).
3 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.
4 See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951); Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska 1971);
Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
5 Former AS 12.30.011(b) (2017). Although Pisano’s case is governed by the bail
statute in place in 2017, see Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13089 (Order dated
May 24, 2018), at 10, the “least restrictive” language also appears in the current bail statute.
See AS 12.30.011(b) (2019).

Pisano v. State - p. 6
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
are necessary to reasonably assure Pisano’s appearance and the safety of the victim, other
persons, and the community. I therefore dissent from the Court’s decision to affirm the
trial court’s latest bail order.
Beginning in our first bail order in this case, we expressed concern that the
trial court was evaluating Pisano’s monetary bail in a vacuum, rather than as a
component of the structured and restrictive supervision package it had approved.6 The
trial court’s latest order does not provide sufficient assurance that this analysis has
occurred. In the order, the court stated that it had “reconsidered the total amount of
monetary bail in this case,” but only “in light of the $250,000 cash or corporate
appearance bond and the $500,000 cash performance bond.” The court did not mention
the other components of Pisano’s pretrial release plan.
Pisano, who has no prior convictions, will be subject to 24-hour house
arrest with electronic monitoring and the constant supervision of a third-party custodian.
Pisano will be allowed to leave the house only to attend court and verified medical and
legal appointments. Pisano has also agreed not to possess any weapons, and a
representative from Alaska Pretrial Services has inspected and approved the home in
which Pisano intends to stay. Pisano is precluded from having contact with the families
of the victims, and he is precluded from leaving the State without the court’s permission.
In its order, the court never mentioned these other aspects of the pretrial
release plan, and what purpose each of the three performance protections — electronic
monitoring, live monitoring, and the $500,000 cash performance bond — is designed to
6 See Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13089 (Order dated May 24, 2018),
at 7, 9; see also Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13289 (Order dated Jan. 16,
2019), at 6.

Pisano v. State - p. 7
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
serve within this structured supervision plan. The court also did not explain why
correcting the errors we identified in our last order did not affect its determination of the
appropriate level of monetary bail.
I recognize that the determination of bail is entrusted to the sound discretion
of the trial court and that judges may have a range of reasonable responses to a given bail
request. But that presumes that the proper analysis has been performed. Because I am
not convinced that such an examination occurred in this case, and I am concerned that
the amount of bail is being used as a means of confining Pisano prior to trial in
contravention of the Alaska Constitution, I would remand with directions to the trial
court to either lower the monetary bail or to provide a further explanation of why the
monetary bail imposed — and not something less — is necessary to reasonably assure
Pisano’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and the community, given the
entire bail release plan.7
7 See AS 12.30.006(f) (requiring the court to issue written or oral findings that explain
the reasons for imposing the particular conditions of release); see also Brangan v.
Commonwealth, 80 N.E.3d 949, 964-66 (Mass. 2017) (recognizing that a “particularized
statement” as to why no less restrictive conditions will suffice, including “how the bail
amount was calculated,” is appropriate in light of due process concerns and “because holding
a defendant on an unaffordable bail amount defeats bail’s purpose of securing pretrial
liberty”).

Pisano v. State - p. 8
File No. A-13549
January 31, 2020
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge Marston
Central Staff
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Mail:
Fitzgerald, Kevin T
Soderstrom, Donald