Judicial District of Tolland


†††† Surety Bonds; Whether Court was Required to Grant Surety's Motions to Revoke Real Estate Bonds.† The plaintiff in error, Marjorie G. Richardson, posted real estate bonds to enable her son, Dustin Odell, to be released on bail during the pendency of his four criminal cases.† Richardson later moved to revoke those bonds.† Attached to her motions was a letter explaining that she had posted the bonds so that Odell could attend a drug treatment program and that she now sought to revoke the bonds because Odell had successfully completed the program.† The letter also indicated that Richardson felt that she had done everything she could to give Odell the best opportunity for a successful and drug free future and that it was within the court's discretion whether to return Odell to the custody of the state.† When Odell next appeared in court for a pretrial conference, Richardson was not present and the court did not address her motions.† Odell then elected a jury trial.† Richardson subsequently filed new motions to revoke the real estate bonds, along with an affidavit indicating that Odell had moved out of her house and that she had limited contact with him.† At the hearing on those motions, Richardson and the state were present but Odell was not.† The state argued that Richardson could not be released from the bonds because she did not produce Odell in court.† Richardson, in turn, argued that since similar motions were pending at the time of Odellís pretrial conference, the court was required to issue a mittimus for his arrest at that time pursuant to General Statutes ß 54-56, which directs the trial court to issue a mittimus ordering the arrest of a defendant if his surety applies to the court for his arrest and attests that he intends to abscond.† In denying Richardsonís motions, the court concluded that Richardson had not offered any valid basis that would justify the revocation of the bonds.† It noted that although Richardson's affidavit stated that Odell had moved out of her house and that she had limited contact with him, there was no attestation or other evidence indicating that she believed that he intended to abscond.† In this writ of error, the Supreme Court will determine whether the trial court was required to grant Richardsonís motions to revoke the real estate bonds.