Justices pressed counsel on whether bail-refund claims must follow PRP procedures or be treated as Blake-triggered collateral relief

Multiple justices questioned both sides about the appropriate procedural path for a claim seeking return of forfeited bail in light of Blake. One justice asked whether the relief sought was a collateral claim or part of a PRP analysis that would require different timing and procedural safeguards.

Edward Wicksler said the triggering event for his client's motion was Blake and that Nelson's forward-looking test supports refunding funds the State now lacks an interest in retaining. The State responded that many of these claims should proceed under established post-conviction or motion practice, noting that Mr. Charles did not pursue motions at the time and some forfeitures were handled administratively in clerk hearings rather than on the record.

The justices also raised practical questions about the record: counsel agreed a transcript exists for a Blake-refund hearing but said transcripts from 2007 and 2009 for the initial forfeiture proceedings were not available; that lack of records formed part of the Court's inquiry into how discretionary decisions were made. After extended questioning, the court took the case under submission.