Sikoya Francis-Fields v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Sikoya Gage Francis-Fields,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals Nos. A-13727/
A-13737
Order
Date of Order: December 17, 2020
Trial Court Case No. 4FA-20-01518CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
Sikoya Gage Francis-Fields is charged with first-degree murder, tampering
with physical evidence, and cruelty to animals for allegedly killing his girlfriend and
their dog.
At a bail review hearing, Francis-Fields proposed a bail release plan that
included the following requirements: two third-party custodians (namely, Francis-
Fields’s grandfather and his wife), pretrial enforcement house arrest with 24-hour GPS
electronic monitoring, and a $20,000 cash performance bond.
The trial court rejected the proposed bail release plan, finding that the
proposed third-party custodians were not strong enough and that the proposed monetary
bail was too low. Based on the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the
victim’s death, the court found that Francis-Fields represented a danger to the community
and a significant flight risk. The court then set bail conditions that included pretrial
enforcement house arrest with 24-hour GPS electronic monitoring, and a $250,000 cash
performance bond. The court indicated that it would consider modifying these
conditions if Francis-Fields proposed different third-party custodians.

Francis-Fields v. State - p. 2
File Nos. A-13727/A-13737
December 17, 2020
Francis-Fields appeals the trial court’s rejection of his bail proposal, raising
a series of arguments. First, Francis-Fields argues that the trial court abused its
discretion when it rejected his grandparents as third-party custodians. The record shows
that the trial court rejected the grandparents because it found that neither grandparent
“seem[ed] . . . to understand or appreciate the gravity of the allegations in this case.” On
appeal, Francis-Fields characterizes this finding as “speculative” and he asserts that the
trial court unfairly rejected the grandparents because they would not agree with the
prosecutor’s assertions regarding Francis-Fields’ alleged conduct.
We agree with Francis-Fields that a third-party custodian does not need to
believe that the accused is guilty or that the State’s allegations are true in order to be an
appropriate third-party custodian. The critical question is whether the proposed third-
party custodians are willing and able to fulfill the supervisory duties that will be required
of them. Here, the trial court rejected the grandparents as third-party custodians because
the trial court was concerned that their ignorance regarding the underlying allegations
meant that they did not understand the significance of this duty and were therefore ill-
prepared to take it on. We have listened to the recording of the bail hearing, and the
court’s findings are supported by the record. Because we recognize that the trial judge
is in a better position to judge the proposed third-party custodians than we are, we find
no abuse of discretion in that decision.
Francis-Fields also separately argues that the trial court erred when it
imposed the $250,000 cash performance bond. Specifically, Francis-Fields argues that
the trial court failed to adequately explain why a $250,000 cash performance bond was
necessary given the restrictions Francis-Fields had proposed — namely, the dual
coverage of 24-hour third-party custodians and pretrial enforcement house arrest with

Francis-Fields v. State - p. 3
File Nos. A-13727/A-13737
December 17, 2020
24-hour GPS electronic monitoring. But the trial court did not impose the $250,000 cash
performance bond in addition to the dual coverage of 24-hour third-party custodians and
electronic monitoring. Instead, the court retained only the requirement of electronic
monitoring and it signaled its apparent willingness to impose a lower monetary amount
if Francis-Fields was able to propose third-party custodians that met with the trial court’s
approval.
That said, we do have some questions regarding the performance bond that
was imposed in this case. The trial court imposed monetary bail in this case based on its
findings that Francis-Fields represented a “substantial risk” of non-appearance as well
as a risk to the safety of the community.1 But the court did not apportion the monetary
bail into an appearance bond and a performance bond to account for these dual findings.
Instead, it imposed only a performance bond, even though such a bond cannot be used
to enforce appearance.2 The superior court also did not provide a clear explanation for
why $250,000 monetary bail was necessary, rather than a lesser amount that might be
closer to an amount that Francis-Fields is able to pay.
Accordingly, we conclude that a remand is appropriate so that the court can
reconsider the amount of monetary bail and also determine whether the monetary bail
1 Francis-Fields also argues that these findings were based on the legislatively enacted
rebuttable presumption under AS 12.30.011(d)(2), which Francis-Fields argues is
unconstitutional. See AS 12.30.011(d)(2) (creating a rebuttable presumption that a defendant
charged with certain higher-level felonies poses a safety and flight risk).
We conclude that we need not reach the question because we agree with the trial court
that its findings were particularized to the facts of this specific case rather than relying solely
on the statutory presumption.
2 Alaska R. Crim. P. 41(c)(1).

Francis-Fields v. State - p. 4
File Nos. A-13727/A-13737
December 17, 2020
should be apportioned between an appearance bond and a performance bond. We
therefore REMAND this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this order.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
______________________________
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge Bennett
Trial Court Clerk
Central Staff
Distribution:
Email:
Taylor, Kelly, Public Defender
Ambrose, Nicolas Carl, Public Defender
St. John, Renner Jo