Meet The Most Prolific Bail Bondsman In Northern Virginia
The Court held that mandatory remittitur underneath Article 22.16(a) was a violation of the separation of powers provision of the Texas Constitution as a result of it eliminated the judge’s discretion over remission of the bond. In Kinnard v. Collin County Bail Bond Board, 2006 WL (Tex.App. – Dallas July 18, 2006) the substantive issue was whether a bail bond agent’s office within the county as required by Tex. Code §1704.213(a) could be on the agent’s residence in an area not zoned for workplace use.
The Court held that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient and, within the absence of prejudice from omission of the fax quantity, the surety was not discharged. In Castaneda v. State, 2008 WL (Tex.App. – Corpus Christi June 30, 2008) the defendants in three circumstances failed to appear and the trial courtroom entered a judgment nisi and, finally, a last judgment, against the principal and bail agent. The precise surety on the bonds, nevertheless, was not named within the judgments and was not served.
The bail agent filed a petition for a invoice of evaluate and appealed the final judgments. The principal and all sureties must be named within the judgment nisi. In this case the State didn’t name or serve the surety, and therefore erred in coming into the final judgments solely in opposition to the principals and the bail agent.
McKenna v. State, 209 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App. – Waco 2006), in a 2-1 decision, held that the trial court docket abused its discretion in failing to remit part of the forfeiture and then directed that $15,000 of the $25,000 forfeiture be remitted. The Court reviewed seven factors to be thought of, discovered that there was no proof of hurt to the public or prejudice or expense to the government and that the surety located the defendant, and held the trial courtroom’s denial of any aid to be an abuse of discretion. The Court then went on to weigh the factors itself and order return of all however $10,000.
Since he offered no excuse for his failure to look (he simply forgot), the trial court docket forfeited the bond and had the defendant taken into custody. In the trial court the surety argued that it was exonerated pursuant to Article 22.thirteen(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (since the defendant was incarcerated), but the trial courtroom held that statute an unconstitutional infringement on the separate powers of the judiciary. On appeal the surety didn’t adequately elevate or transient that problem, and the Court refused to think about it. The surety additionally argued that it was entitled to full remittitur pursuant to Article 22.16(a) as a result of the defendant was later launched on a new bond.
The dissenting Justice argued that it was not the State’s burden to show prejudice or hurt to the public, it was the surety’s burden to show their lack, and the truth that there was no proof should not have aided the surety’s trigger. The dissent characterized the majority as partaking in a de novo decision of the case rather than appellate evaluate of the trial court’s discretion. Safety National Casualty Corp. v. State, 225 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2006) affirmed a trial court docket judgment remitting only 50% of the bond. The defendant failed to seem, however the bail agent called him and he appeared the following morning.
In two of the instances the Court directed that judgment be entered in favor of the agent as a result of the 4 12 months limitations period had run and would forestall the State from re-instituting the instances naming the surety. In the third case, the defendant had been recovered and pled guilty, so it was dismissed as moot.
Even assuming the agents were acting beneath color of state law, the plaintiff didn’t set up a genuine problem of fact to contest the reasonableness of the brokers’ acts. In Aaron and Morey Bonds and Bail v. Third District Court, 156 P.3d 801 (Utah 2007) the clerk mailed timely notice of forfeiture to the surety, however the notice didn’t embrace the prosecutor’s fax number as required by Utah Code section 77-20b-a hundred and one(b).