Civil & Criminal Justice
This appears to be a harsh end result provided that the defendant was in prison in Mexico, however the court docket emphasised the surety and agent did little or no to observe him or keep knowledgeable about his nonappearance. In People v. Bray, 2007 WL (Mich.App. November 29, 2007) the defendant pled guilty however fled before sentencing. The trial court docket forfeited the bond, and the bail agent appealed arguing that the court should have thought of various equitable factors in deciding whether or not to grant full or partial remission of the forfeiture. The Court of Appeals held that this argument had not been presented to the trial court, and so was waived, and in any event the record did not set up that the path court abused its discretion in denying aid.
In State v. Thammavong, 2008 WL (Kan.App. March 21, 2008) the surety posted a bond to release the defendant. Several months later, the defendant was arrested on a new cost, and the surety once more supplied a bond. Apparently as a result of the brand new arrest, the bond within the first case was revoked and a new bond required for an increased amount. The defendant failed to seem within the second case and the court docket entered judgment in opposition to the surety.
In State v. Tuthill, 912 A.2nd 146 (N.J. Super. A.D. December 8, 2006) the court clerk erroneously despatched the surety a discover that the bond was canceled. The Court thought that there was no prejudice from, or detrimental reliance on, the erroneous cancellation discover. In State v. Redd, 2006 WL (N.J.Super.A.D. December 29, 2006) the trial court docket remitted solely 20% of the bond forfeiture despite the fact that the defendant was promptly rearrested on the bench warrant. Stringer v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, 969 So.2nd 113 (Miss.App. 2007) affirmed dismissal of a pro se go well with by a criminal who complained that his bond was revoked in 1989. The Court held that a 2002 dismissal of the same claims barred his try to re-assert them.
The rest of the tackle was right, and there was no allegation that the discover was not received or that the surety was prejudiced by the error. The surety moved to put aside the judgment, which was denied, and the surety appealed. The statute required mailing to the handle on the bond, however does not outline tackle.
In City of Bossier City v. Miller, 920 So.2nd 408 (La.App. 2006) the defendant was released and later pled guilty and was fined $1,000. The paperwork for her launch confirmed â€œcashâ€ as the surety and gave no indication that anyone served as her surety. Someone else paid the $1,000, nevertheless, and he objected to forfeiture of his cash to pay the defendantâ€™s fine.
The courtroom famous that a contract of suretyship should be in writing and that there was no writing indicating that the appellant was surety for the defendant. In State v. Gibson, 2005 WL (La. App. March 24, 2005) the clerk mailed discover of the judgment of bond forfeiture to the surety and to the defendant, however the envelop to the defendant had the incorrect zip code.
The Court agreed that a material increase of the bondâ€™s threat with out the suretyâ€™s consent discharges the surety, but in this matter there was no increased danger. The forfeiture was in the second case, and that bond was written after the rise in the bond within the first case.