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-13693
Order
Bail Appeal
Date of Order: 4/1/2021
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-17-07343CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
This case is before us for a fifth 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.1 Pisano has no prior criminal history.
On January 31, 2020, after previously remanding Pisano’s case several
times for reconsideration of bail, we affirmed — in a 2-1 decision — the superior court’s
pretrial bail order requiring Pisano to post a $500,000 cash performance bond and a
$250,000 cash or corporate appearance bond.2
Pisano’s case proceeded to trial, and it was submitted to a jury in March
2020. At trial, Pisano asserted that one of the State’s witnesses shot and killed one of the
victims. Pisano admitted that he shot the other two victims, but he argued that he was
acting in self-defense. Pisano’s trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach
a unanimous verdict. Pisano is currently awaiting retrial.
1 AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A) and AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), respectively.
2 Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13549 (Order dated Jan. 31,
2020).

Pisano v. State, File No. A-13693
April 1, 2021 – pg. 2
In May 2020, following the mistrial, Pisano asked the superior court to
modify the monetary portion of its bail order. In particular, Pisano proposed a monetary
bail posting of a $25,000 cash performance bond and a $50,000 cash or corporate
appearance bond. In addition, Pisano proposed maintaining the following conditions that
were already approved by the court: twenty-four-hour supervision by a third-party
custodian (Pisano’s mother as the primary custodian and a family friend as a substitute,
when needed); twenty-four-hour GPS electronic monitoring through Alaska Pretrial
Services; and house arrest with passes only for verified medical appointments.
Thus, under conditions that had already been approved by the court, Pisano
would be monitored twenty-four hours a day by electronic monitoring and would
additionally be monitored twenty-four hours a day by a third-party custodian.
Furthermore, he would reside in the home of an Anchorage pediatrician and his wife who
have installed a security system in their house which contacts the police department if
there is a breach in the security perimeter. Pisano also agreed to remain on house arrest
and would not be permitted to leave the house, except for verified medical appointments.
Court hearings and attorney visits would be conducted by video or telephone, unless
otherwise ordered by the superior court. Pisano also agreed not to possess any weapons
and Alaska Pretrial Services will search the home in which he will stay. He is precluded
from having contact with the families of the victims, and he is precluded from leaving
the State without the court’s permission. Pisano surrendered possession of his passport
and agreed to sign a waiver of extradition before his release.
Following a bail hearing, the court declined to alter the previously-set
monetary bail.

Pisano v. State, File No. A-13693
April 1, 2021 – pg. 3
When this current bail appeal was first filed, the only contested issue was
whether the superior court abused its discretion by rejecting Pisano’s proposed monetary
bail and instead maintaining the $500,000 cash performance bond and $250,000 cash or
corporate appearance bond. Since then, the State has filed notice in this Court, alleging
Pisano has engaged in additional criminal conduct. According to the State, it has
evidence that, following the mistrial in March 2020, Pisano immediately began an effort
to coordinate the murder of one of the primary witnesses against him.
This new information is obviously pertinent to any future bail decision.
Nonetheless, we must address the issue now before us — i.e. whether the superior
court’s May 2020 bail order was an abuse of discretion.3
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles criminal defendants
to be released on bail.4 The traditional right to pre-trial release on bail serves a number
of important purposes including permitting the “unhampered preparation of a defense”
and serving to “prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.”5 Although
criminal defendants do not have an absolute right to monetary bail in an amount they can
post,6 both the United States and Alaska Constitutions prohibit the imposition of
3 Former AS 12.30.030(a) (2017) (“The appellate court shall affirm the order
unless it finds that the lower court abused its discretion.”)
4 Alaska Const. art. I, § 11.
5 Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951).
6 Gilbert v. State, 540 P.2d 485, 486 n.12 (Alaska 1975) (citing Reeves v. State,
411 P.2d 212 (Alaska 1966)).

Pisano v. State, File No. A-13693
April 1, 2021 – pg. 4
“excessive” bail.7 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.8
In Judge Wollenberg’s dissent to our most recent bail order in this case,
prior to Pisano’s first trial, she noted that Pisano’s release plan included several
nonmonetary performance protections: electronic monitoring; live monitoring by a third-
party custodian; restrictions on Pisano’s movement outside of his proposed residence;
inspection of that residence; and a prohibition on possessing weapons.9 She also noted
that the superior court had not explained what purpose each of the performance
protections — the nonmonetary conditions and the $500,000 cash performance bond —
was designed to serve within the supervision plan.10 As a result, she was concerned that
the superior court was evaluating Pisano’s monetary bail in a vacuum, rather than as one
component of the structured and restrictive supervision package it had approved.11
This Court agreed with the principles discussed in Judge Wollenberg’s
dissent.12 But, relying on the superior court’s finding that Pisano’s financial status
7 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.
8 See Stack, 342 U.S. at 5; Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska 1971);
Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
9 Pisano v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13549 (Order dated Jan. 31,
2020), at 6 (Wollenberg, J., dissenting).
10 Id. at 6-7 (Wollenberg, J., dissenting).
11 Id. at 6 (Wollenberg, J., dissenting).
12 Id. at 4.

Pisano v. State, File No. A-13693
April 1, 2021 – pg. 5
remained inconclusive, we determined that the monetary bail amount set by the court was
not manifestly unreasonable.13
Pisano’s financial status is seemingly much clearer now. Following the
mistrial, Pisano’s private attorney withdrew as counsel and the Alaska Public Defender
Agency was reappointed after the superior court found Pisano to be indigent. At the May
2020 bail hearing, the superior court heard lengthy testimony from Pisano’s mother,
Suzanne Pisano, and his wife, Tracey Pisano, about the family’s financial status. This
testimony provided the court with detailed information about the finances of Pisano’s
extended family, which friends have been helping the family, and how much money
these friends have provided. Accordingly, although Pisano’s ability to hire private
counsel previously raised questions about his financial status, including his claim of
indigency, those questions have now largely been answered.
Prior to receiving the State’s recent notice, our intent was to remand this
case to the superior court for reconsideration of Pisano’s monetary bail in light of the
new clarity on Pisano’s financial resources. But because the State’s new information
may impact the court’s assessment of the danger Pisano poses to the victims and the
community and may support the superior court’s decision to give significant weight to
that bail factor, a remand for consideration of that information is also clearly warranted.
13 Id. at 4-5; see also former AS 12.30.011(c) (2017) (requiring the court to
consider, among other factors, the “assets available to the [defendant] to meet monetary
conditions of release”). We note that the current bail statute contains the same requirement.
See AS 12.30.011(c)(8) (2019).

Pisano v. State, File No. A-13693
April 1, 2021 – pg. 6
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the superior court for proceedings
consistent with this order and to provide the court an opportunity to consider the
information contained in the State’s recent notice.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Marston
Trial Court Clerk - Anchorage
Distribution:
Email:
Greer, Hatton G., Office of Public Advocacy
Soderstrom, Donald