18-8-212. Violation of bail bond conditions.

Statute text

(1) A person who is charged with any felony and is released on bond commits a class 6 felony if the person knowingly fails to appear in the felony case for which the person is on bond with the intent to avoid prosecution.

(2) A person who is released on bond and is charged with any felony or misdemeanor arising from the conduct for which the person was arrested commits a class 2 misdemeanor if the person intentionally fails to appear in the case for any proceedings for which victims or witnesses have appeared in court.

(3) The court shall sentence any person who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense in violation of section 18-6-803.5, or a felony offense in violation of section 18-8-704, 18-8-705, 18-8-706, or 18-8-707, involving a victim or witness in the underlying offense while on bond in the underlying case to imprisonment of not less than one year for violation of subsection (1) of this section and not less than six months for violation of subsection (2) of this section. The court shall order the sentence to be served consecutively with any sentence for the offense on which the person is on bail if the underlying sentence is a sentence to incarceration.

(3.5) A person who is on bond for a sex offense as defined in section 18-1.3-1003 who is convicted under this section for a bond violation shall not be eligible for probation or a suspended sentence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than one year. Any such sentence shall be served consecutively with any sentence for the offense on which the person is on bail.

(4) A criminal action charged pursuant to this section may be tried either in the county where the offense is committed or in the county in which the court that issued the bond is located, if such court is within this state.

(5) A violation of bond appearance conditions shall not be brought against any person subject to the provisions of section 16-4-113 (2).

History

Source: L. 79: Entire section added, p. 663, 3, effective July 1. L. 82: (1) and (2) amended, p. 321, 1, effective March 22. L. 85: (1) and (2) amended, p. 623, 9, effective July 1. L. 89: (1) amended, p. 839, 80, effective July 1. L. 91: (1) and (2) amended, p. 407, 14, effective June 6. L. 2005: (4) added, p. 427, 7, effective April 29. L. 2013: (3) amended and (3.5) added, (HB 13-1242), ch. 308, p. 1635, 1, effective July 1. L. 2016: (3) amended, (SB 16-102), ch. 181, p. 620, 2, effective July 1. L. 2021: (1) and (2) amended and (5) added, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3199, 293, effective March 1, 2022.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

This section is not unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. People v. Garcia, 698 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1985).

Nor is this section unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. People v. Garcia, 698 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1985).

This section, when read together with 16-4-103 (2), is not unconstitutionally vague as applied. This section only applies to knowing violations of bail bond conditions, and the defendant was adequately apprised by the information of the manner in which he had violated those conditions. People v. Baker, 45 P.3d 753 (Colo. App. 2001).

Subsection (1) does not unconstitutionally delegate authority to the district court to define a criminal offense. People v. Baker, 45 P.3d 753 (Colo. App. 2001).

Subsection (3) is not unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection and due process of law. People v. Garcia, 698 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1985).

In order to prove that a defendant violated this section, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the terms of the bond were in effect at the time of the alleged illegal conduct. People v. Luna, 2013 COA 67, 410 P.3d 471.

Evidence that the defendant intended to and attempted to flee the jurisdiction will support an inference that the defendant knowingly failed to appear in violation of this section. People v. Williamson, 839 P.2d 519 (Colo. App. 1992).

No requirement that defendant be advised that violation of a bond condition is a crime. Statute that imposes criminal liability for certain conduct requires only that defendant know what he is doing when he is doing the conduct. People v. Rester, 36 P.3d 98 (Colo. App. 2001).

The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for violating the bail bond condition that prohibited defendant from leaving the state without permission. Evidence that the defendant signed the bond paperwork, which included the condition not to leave the state, along with other evidence and inferences was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The presence of stacked inferences is not alone dispositive of a sufficiency of the evidence claim. Rather, it is one factor that a court may consider in determining whether the evidence presented satisfied the prevailing substantial evidence test for evidence sufficiency. People v. Donald, 2020 CO 24, 461 P.3d 4.