Solomon Tomas James v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Solomon Tomas James,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-13582
Order
Date of Order: 2/25/2020
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-18-02174CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
Solomon Tomas James appeals the superior court’s refusal to modify his
bail conditions. James argues that the court erred by failing to independently assess the
bail application and by denying his application based only on the court’s finding that the
previous bail was “appropriately set.”
We agree with James. We therefore remand James’s case to the superior
court and direct the superior court to conduct an independent review of James’s bail
request.
Facts and proceedings
On March 8, 2018, James was indicted for twenty-four felonies, including
first-degree sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and second-degree sexual abuse
of a minor. When the indictment against James was returned in open court, the superior
court issued a warrant for his arrest. The bail set on the arrest warrant was a $250,000
cash appearance bond, a $50,000 cash performance bond, electronic monitoring by the
pretrial enforcement division, and no contact with minors. After James was arrested, at
his felony first appearance hearing, bail was set in the amount written on the warrant.

James v. State– p.2
File No. A-13582
February 25, 2020
On October 15, 2018, James appeared in court to request a temporary
release in order to attend his grandmother’s funeral. The State did not oppose James’s
proposal, which included a 10% posting to the court of a $10,000 cash appearance bond,
a $2,500 cash performance bond, house arrest with passes for emergency medical and
the funeral only, electronic monitoring through Alaska Defendant Monitoring, and
supervision by third-party custodians. Bail would revert to the initial conditions upon
remand. The court approved James’s request and set a remand date for October 17,
2018. James remanded as ordered without incident.
On January 7, 2019, James appeared in court for a bail hearing. At that
hearing, James asked the superior court to reduce the monetary bond and to release him
to house arrest secured by electronic monitoring. The superior court summarily denied
this request, finding that there was “no change in circumstances.” The court did not issue
a written order and did not orally explain why the conditions of release previously
imposed were necessary to fulfill the purposes of bail.
Almost eleven months later — on November 25 and December 5, 2019 —
James again appeared in court for a bail hearing. After listening to the arguments of
counsel, the court declined to modify the bail. The court explained that James’s bail
“was set on an arrest warrant . . . on March 8, 2018,” and while an “infinite number [of
bail proposals] might be appropriate,” this “doesn’t mean that bail initially was not
appropriately set.” Without making any further findings, the court denied James’s bail
application.
This appeal followed.

James v. State– p.3
File No. A-13582
February 25, 2020
Why we remand James’s case for a new bail review hearing
James contends that he has never received an independent assessment of
the conditions of release that were set on his arrest warrant. The record supports James’s
contention.
Alaska Statute 12.30.006(c) provides:
A person who remains in custody 48 hours after appearing
before a judicial officer because of inability to meet the
conditions of release shall, upon application, be entitled to
have the conditions reviewed by the judicial officer who
imposed them. If the judicial officer who imposed the
conditions of release is not available, any judicial officer in
the judicial district may review the conditions.
In Torgerson v. State, we held that this statute requires a judicial officer to conduct an
independent assessment of the defendant’s conditions of release at a first bail review
hearing.1
Under AS 12.30.006(d)(1), a defendant is generally not entitled to a
subsequent bail review hearing unless the defendant provides “new information not
considered at the previous review.” But at a first bail review hearing, a defendant who
remains in custody is “entitled” to have the conditions reviewed by a judicial officer; the
defendant need not present any information that was not previously known at the time
of the first appearance.2
1 Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
2 See AS 12.30.006(c).

James v. State– p.4
File No. A-13582
February 25, 2020
Additionally, AS 12.30.006(f) requires a judicial officer to “issue written
or oral findings that explain the reasons the officer imposed the particular conditions of
release or modifications or additions to conditions previously imposed.” This provision
precludes a court from simply relying on, or deferring to, findings made at an earlier
hearing when bail was initially set.
Although James was released temporarily for his grandmother’s funeral,
the original bail was reinstated when he remanded himself to custody. As a result, those
bail conditions should have been reviewed for the purposes of pretrial release on
January 7, 2019. But at that hearing, the judge did not conduct the requisite independent
assessment of James’s conditions of release. Instead, on January 7, 2019, and again on
December 5, 2019, the judge summarily denied James’s bail request without making
additional findings. The court simply adopted the original bail set by the judge who had
issued the arrest warrant, without considering whether the particular bail conditions were
the least restrictive necessary to reasonably assure James’s appearance and the safety of
the victims and the community.3
Because the superior court was required to independently assess James’s
conditions of release, and because we are unable to say that James received the bail
review hearing to which he was entitled, we remand this case to the superior court to
conduct this independent review.
3 See AS 12.30.011(b) (“If a judicial officer determines that the release under
(a) of this section will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person or will pose
a danger to the victim, other persons, or the community, the officer shall impose the least
restrictive condition or conditions that will reasonably ensure the person’s appearance
and protect the victim, other persons, and the community.”).

James v. State– p.5
File No. A-13582
February 25, 2020
Conclusion
For the reasons explained here, we REMAND this case to the superior court
for an independent assessment of James’s bail proposal.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Sarah Anderson, Deputy Clerk
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge Michael Wolverton
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Mail:
Moberly, Michael A.
Moses, Richard Ralph