State tells justices cash bail enforces court jurisdiction and need not be refunded broadly

Jesse Espinosa, arguing for the State, told the court that cash bail is not a constitutionally protected due-process property right in the way defense counsel described and that the State may retain forfeitures under long-recognized discretion. "I think the case law makes very clear that there is no due process right to that bill, a cash bill," Espinosa said, urging the court to distinguish between money exacted as a consequence of conviction and money forfeited to secure appearance.

Espinosa reviewed bond cases such as State v. Maine and emphasized statutory and practical differences between surety bonds and posted cash. He argued Blake's remedial reach does not automatically authorize a flood of collateral claims for fees or other costs that were not exactions of conviction; some forfeitures here were discretionary and some funds were already applied to legal financial obligations.

Espinosa told the court the record suggests roughly $900–$950 in posted bail, with about $650 already applied to LFOs, leaving approximately $250 at issue; he also noted bench-warrant fees of $100 each were assessed during the case. The State argued the appropriate vehicle for some claims is the normal motion-and-appeal process rather than treating every claim as Blake-triggered relief.