Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Banderman

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

April 1, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LEANN BANDERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DENT COUNTY Honorable Brandi L. Baird, Associate Circuit Judge

          JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

         Leann Banderman (Banderman) had two separate jail board bills taxed as court costs in her criminal case. She appeals from the denial of her motion to retax costs. Because there is no statutory authority to treat jail board bills as court costs, the trial court's ruling is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         In January 2016, Banderman was charged by information with misdemeanor stealing. In September 2016, a $3, 000 surety bond was posted. In November 2016, Banderman pled guilty to misdemeanor stealing and was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail. She received credit for 30 days already served. The judgment ordered Banderman to pay all court costs by February 2, 2017. Thereafter, the circuit clerk prepared a fee report that taxed $118.50 in statutory costs and $1, 400 for a jail board bill that Banderman incurred as the result of her 30-day jail sentence.

         As of February 2, 2017, Banderman had not paid the assessed court costs in the amount of $1, 518.50. A failure-to-appear warrant was issued. That warrant was served in March 2017.

         On May 10, 2017, Banderman posted a 10% cash $2, 000 bond in her name only and deposited $200 with the trial court. After listing a number of bond conditions, the bond form stated:

If the above conditions are followed, the defendant will be released from this bond and any cash or securities deposited will be returned to the defendant or the assignee, less any fines, court costs, restitution and various other fees which will be deducted from the cash bond before any money will be refunded.

         (Bold emphasis in original.) On May 11, she signed a "Release of Bond" form, which released the bond for payment of her court costs and board bill.

         On October 19, 2017, a payment-review hearing was held, and another failure-to-appear warrant was issued. This warrant set bond at $5, 000 (cash only) and stated that Banderman could pay the outstanding balance of costs in the amount of $3, 478.50 in lieu of court appearance. Another payment-review hearing was held on December 14, 2017. After Banderman's bond was modified, she posted a 10% cash $5, 000 bond in her name only and deposited $500 with the court. This bond form contained the same language, quoted above, concerning various fees that could be deducted before any money would be refunded.

         In March 2018, Banderman's counsel filed a motion to retax costs. The motion asked the trial court to reduce court costs by $3, 560 because there was no statute authorizing a jail board bill to be taxed as costs. Banderman requested a refund of $581.50 because she had deposited $700 with the trial court, but only $118.50 in statutory costs were assessed against her.

         On April 26, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to retax costs. The court denied the motion and ordered the $500 bond money deposited with the court in December 2017 be applied toward the unpaid, assessed court costs. Banderman filed her notice of appeal the next day.

         Discussion and Decision

         Banderman presents three points on appeal, which collectively challenge the assessment of the two jail board bills as court costs in her criminal case. We can address all of those challenges together because the outcome of this appeal is dictated by our Supreme Court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.