Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) :: View topic - Bail Bond Court Case Summaries.. June 2013

Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

Bail Bond Court Case Summaries.. June 2013 https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=15028	Page 1 of 1

Author:	NYPD BLUE [ Mon 10 Jun 2013 17:03 ]
Post subject:	Bail Bond Court Case Summaries.. June 2013
Bail Bond Case Summaries V10 Posted 6/10/2013 In State v. Lexington National Insurance Company, 2013 WL 2145982 (Ariz.App. May 7, 2013) the defendant agreed to plead guilty to two felony charges. The trial court “deferred acceptance of the plea until the time of sentencing and affirmed [the defendant’s] prior release order.” The defendant failed to appear for sentencing, and after holding a hearing the court entered judgment forfeiting the bond. The surety appealed arguing that the agreement to plead guilty was a conviction for purposes of Ariz. Rule of Crim. Proc. 7.2(c)(1) and so the court was required as a matter of law to exonerate the appearance bond. The Court held that the agreement to plead guilty was not a conviction for purposed of Rule 7.2(c)(1) and so rejected the surety’s argument and affirmed the trial court judgment. State v. Mezurashi, 2013 WL 2149684 (Ha.App. May 16, 2013); State v. Washington, 2013 WL 2149688 (Ha.App. May 16, 2013); and State v. Slavick, 2013 WL 2149690 (Ha.App. May 16, 2013) all dismissed appeals filed by the bail bond agent based on defects in the notices of appeal and failure to preserve the issue on appeal by asserting it in the trial court. The Court did not reach the bail agent’s argument that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney was not permitted to represent the State in bail forfeiture proceedings. In re A Way Out Bonding, Case No. M2012-423 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 28, 2013) reversed the trial court’s rejection of a Petition to operate a bail bond company in the 22nd Judicial District and remanded with directions to hold a hearing on the Petition. The applicant wanted to provide surety bail bonds, and was licensed to do so in other counties. A single judge in the 22nd Judicial District took the position that under its local rules if a bond was to be secured by someone other than the applicant, the person securing the bond had to deposit security as required from professional bondsmen. The trial court stated that “bonds issued through an insurance company were prohibited in the 22nd Judicial District.” On appeal the State acknowledged that the prohibition on bonds secured by an insurance company was incorrect but argued that the insurance company would have to secure the bonds by a deposit in the same manner that any other third party would. The Court agreed with the State that based on the Petition the applicant failed to comply with the local rule because the surety “did not join in the petition and agree that its interests in assets were subject to seizure for satisfaction of bond obligations.” The Court held that the trial court failed to follow its own local rule, which required a hearing and participation by all of the Circuit Judges, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In State v. Jamali, Case No. 12-697 (Ariz.App. May 28, 2013) the defendant appeared for a competency hearing but left when asked to approach the podium. The trial court issued a bench warrant and set a bond forfeiture hearing. The court forfeited 50% of the cash bond, which had been posted by the defendant’s mother, and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant was a party to the judgment and could appeal and that his leaving the court hearing without permission was a breach of the bond. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment. County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2013 WL 2368403 (Cal.App. May 31, 2013) bond was posted on June 11, 2011, the defendant was deported on June 13, and he failed to appear on June 24. The surety moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond pursuant to Penal Code §1305(d) because he was permanently unable to appear in court. The trial court denied the motion because it thought the surety did not establish that the failure to appear was without the connivance of the surety. The trial court equated the “without connivance” portion of the statute to mean the surety did not have unclean hands. The court reasoned that the surety knew the defendant was an undocumented alien who had previously been deported and likely would be deported and not be able to appear but wrote the bond anyway. The court found this constituted unclean hands in the transaction and, therefore, connivance in the failure to appear. Financial Casualty Insurance Co. v. State, 2013 WL 2443153 (Md.App. June 6, 2013), on a Motion for Reconsideration of its prior opinion reported at 2013 WL 1157537, the Court issued a new opinion reaching the same result. The defendant failed to appear and was not recovered within the extended appearance period (90 days extendable to 180 days). After the surety paid the forfeiture, the defendant was arrested on an unconnected matter and incarcerated. The surety petitioned for remission of the forfeiture, and the trial court denied relief reasoning that the appearance period had expired and the surety had not played a role in the defendant’s recovery. The Court of Special Appeals reversed and held that under the statute prior to its amendment in 2011 the surety was entitled to the return of the penal sum of the bond less any expenses incurred by the state for the defendant’s arrest, apprehension or surrender. In a footnote the Court stated that under the current statute the surety would be entitled to such a refund only if the bond penalty was paid during the appearance period. Here, since the payment was made over seven months after the failure to appear, the surety would not have been entitled to relief if the current statute had applied. [Westlaw incorrectly states that the June 6 opinion was by the Court of Appeals.]

Author:	tsuggs [ Fri 14 Jun 2013 14:38 ]
Post subject:	Re: Bail Bond Court Case Summaries.. June 2013
County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2013 WL 2368403 (Cal.App. May 31, 2013) bond was posted on June 11, 2011, the defendant was deported on June 13, and he failed to appear on June 24. The surety moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond pursuant to Penal Code §1305(d) because he was permanently unable to appear in court. The trial court denied the motion because it thought the surety did not establish that the failure to appear was without the connivance of the surety. The trial court equated the “without connivance” portion of the statute to mean the surety did not have unclean hands. The court reasoned that the surety knew the defendant was an undocumented alien who had previously been deported and likely would be deported and not be able to appear but wrote the bond anyway. The court found this constituted unclean hands in the transaction and, therefore, connivance in the failure to appear. In the above case, the CA Court of Appeals overturned the trial court. Otherwise the initial ruling would essentially banned the posting of bonds for illegals in California. Now, it is still an important case as I believe that there will be a trial court that will find another legal point to try and collect on a forfeiture of a bond posted on an illegal that was deported. Not that I post too many at all on illegals, I will no longer do so because of this case. Not worth the hassle.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/