Fragoso v. Fell
In Fragoso v. Fell, 210 Ariz. 427, 434, P 21, 111 P.3d 1027, 1034 (App. 2005), the defense contended that the trial court lacked authority to impose a cash-only bond. 210 Ariz. at 429, P 4, 111 P.3d at 1029.
Another panel of this Court disagreed, holding that though neither statutes nor rules specifically authorize cash-only bonds, trial courts have the inherent authority to order them.
Relying on A.R.S. 13-3967(D) and Rule 7.3(b), the court found that "both the statute and procedural rule specifically extend to the court discretion to impose any condition not expressly listed therein if deemed 'reasonably necessary.'" Id. at 431, P 11, 111 P.3d at 1031.
Further, the court's examination of the Arizona Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 22, led it to conclude that a defendant's right to bail based on "sufficient sureties" accords judges broad discretion in exploring whether posted funds or collateral are indeed sufficient to ensure a defendant's future appearance in court. Id. at 433, 111 P.3d at 1033.