• Mon. Apr 19th, 2021

Bail

ByAuthor

Aug 25, 2019

general bail bondsman

Lookup A Licensed Bail Agent Or Recovery Agent

In a 2 to 1 decision, the Court of Appeals adopted a “no harm no foul” reading of the statute. Because the bail agent knew the defendant had not appeared and that a forfeiture can be entered, he could have presented any reasons he had why judgment should not have been entered. The Court relied on State v. Ward, 372 N.E.second 586 (Ohio 1978) in which the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed use of a conditional judgment in which the judgment was entered before the discover but supplied that it might become last in 20 days if the surety did not produce the defendant. In State v. Hein, 2006 WL (Ohio App. June 7, 2006) the courtroom dismissed the surety’s attraction for lack of jurisdiction. When the defendant failed to look, the trial court noted, “Surety bonds posted to be forfeited” and the clerk sent the surety a letter stating that the bond had been forfeited, however the courtroom never truly ordered forfeiture.

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mayfield, 2003 WL (Pa. Super. May 30, 2003) the defendant violated a situation of his bail by committing an assault shortly after launch. The courtroom held that in considering remission of forfeiture, a court should think about the willfulness of the defendant’s breach, the fee, inconvenience and prejudice to the government and any explanation or mitigating circumstances. The Court of Appeals did not think the information supported forfeiture, however at least the willfulness test ought to have been met since upon his release the defendant went to his girlfriend’s house and broke her nose.

The trial court docket found that these details constituted extraordinary circumstances and remitted the forfeiture. The Court of Appeals reversed because incarceration in another state is not a rare circumstance and the surety did not return the defendant to North Carolina.

The surety didn’t file a movement, however, and after the a hundred and fifty day interval expired the court docket entered a last judgment of forfeiture. The surety moved to put aside the judgment on the grounds of “extraordinary circumstances” and the courtroom granted partial remission of the bond. The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court docket to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of regulation. In State v. Reyes, 2007 WL (N.C.App. May 1, 2007) the defendant fled throughout trial.

Because there have been no apparent mitigating circumstances, in impact the court held that a bail bond cannot be forfeited unless the government can show prejudice from the defendant’s breach. State v. Yount, 2008 WL (Ohio App. March 14, 2008) held that the trial court docket abused its discretion in denying the surety’s movement for aid from a judgment forfeiting the bond.

This case ought to give pause to anybody contemplating posting money bail as a substitute of a surety recognizance in Ohio. It is obvious that the procedural protections prolonged to the surety will be misplaced if cash bail is supplied. State v. Massey, 2007 WL (N.C.App. November 20, 2007) held that the trial courtroom abused its discretion in returning the forfeited bond amount. After last judgment was entered and the surety, the defendant’s father, paid the forfeiture, the surety moved for reduction because of extraordinary circumstances. The defendant was incarcerated in one other state on the time of his arrest warrant, and the surety notified the district lawyer’s workplace of his location.

Merely notifying the district attorney of the defendant’s location just isn’t enough to represent extraordinary circumstances. In State v. Credle, 2008 WL (N.C.App. April 15, 2008) the defendant failed to look and the surety was sent discover of forfeiture. The defendant was re-arrested shortly thereafter and the charges resolved. If the surety had filed a timely movement to put aside the forfeiture, the movement would have been granted.

The surety moved to vacate the non-existent forfeiture, and the trial court docket denied the motion. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals discovered no actual forfeiture order in the data and subsequently no last judgment from which an enchantment might lie. In City of Xenia v. Diaz, 2003 WL (Ohio App. December 19, 2003) the court docket handled a cash deposit made by a third celebration as a cash bond by the defendant and not as a surety bond. The defendant was subject to an INS detainer, and even though bond was posted he never was released from custody. The courtroom held that the appellant who furnished the money was not entitled to the statutory pre-forfeiture discover and a chance to show why the bond should not be forfeited which a surety would have been entitled to receive.

The defendant failed to seem, and the court issued a warrant and a rule to show trigger requiring the defendant and surety to look and show why judgment shouldn’t be entered on the bond. Neither the defendant nor the surety appeared, and judgment was entered towards them. The surety moved for aid from the judgment on the ground that the defendant had been incarcerated in one other county on the date he failed to appear. The trial courtroom denied relief because the surety offered only rumour evidence that the defendant was in jail and the surety failed to establish excusable neglect in not appearing on the present cause hearing. The rumour evidence was adequate support for the alleged protection, and the surety’s actions to advise the authorities of the defendant’s location justified not showing at the hearing.