Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutetrialmotionleasefelonybail
defendantstatutetrialleasefelonybail

Related Cases

Pacheco-Poo; U.S. v.
View Case »
Park v. Cal.
View Case »
Kpomassie; U.S. v.
View Case »
Eleven Vehicles; U.S. v.
View Case »
U.S. v. Mark Carter
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez-Matias v. State

Facts

On September 6, 2016, Faustino Lopez-Matias was arrested and charged with a class C felony for possessing a forged social security card. He was held without bail, and his counsel filed a motion for release on recognizance or for reasonable conditions for release. The trial court denied this motion based on section 544.470.2, which presumes that a person unlawfully present in the U.S. cannot be released under any conditions that would assure their appearance in court.

On September 6, 2016, Faustino Lopez-Matias was arrested and charged with the class C felony of possessing (and attempting to use as genuine) a forged social security card in violation of section 570.090.1(4), RSMo Supp. 2013. Lopez-Matias is being held without bail.

Issue

Does Mo. Rev. Stat. 544.470.2 violate the Missouri Constitution by denying defendants not charged with a capital offense the right to individualized consideration for bail?

Does Mo. Rev. Stat. 544.470.2 violate the Missouri Constitution by denying defendants not charged with a capital offense the right to individualized consideration for bail?

Rule

Article I, section 20 of the Missouri Constitution guarantees that 'all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses.' The court must consider reasonable conditions for release that reflect the particular circumstances of each case.

Article I, section 20, of the Missouri Constitution provides that 'all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great.'

Analysis

The court found that section 544.470.2 violated the constitutional right to bail by denying individualized consideration to defendants based solely on their lawful presence in the U.S. The court emphasized that the trial court must evaluate each case on its own merits, considering various factors such as the nature of the offense and the defendant's ties to the community.

Accordingly, the wholesale denial of pretrial release for an entire class of defendants under section 544.470.2 violates the right to reasonable and individualized bail set forth in article I, section 20.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to consider reasonable conditions for Lopez-Matias's release, including the possibility of denying bail if he poses a risk to the public.

Therefore, because section 544.470.2 impermissibly denied Lopez-Matias the individual consideration to which 'all persons' (except those charged with a capital offense) are entitled under article I, sections 20 and 32, this Court holds that the better course in the circumstances of this application is to order that the trial court consider reasonable conditions for Lopez-Matias's release.

Who won?

Lopez-Matias prevailed because the court found that he was entitled to individualized consideration for bail, which the trial court had denied based on an unconstitutional statute.

Lopez-Matias prevailed because the court found that he was entitled to individualized consideration for bail, which the trial court had denied based on an unconstitutional statute.

You must be