Arizona Case Laws
Click on the below to read Arizona Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2004
Arizona Bail Case Law 2012
In Bankers Insurance Co. v. Old West Bonding Company, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-1804 (D.Ariz. July 13, 2012) the surety sued the bail agency and several individual defendants to recover $50,000 of missing collateral. One of the individual defendants answered but did not otherwise participate in the case as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and several court orders. The Court granted the surety a judgment by default against the individual.
In State v. Ameribail Bail Bonds, Case No. 1 CA-CV 11-661 (Ariz.App. April 12, 2012) the defendant failed to appear and left the state. He was arrested in Illinois before the forfeiture hearing and eventually returned to Arizona. The surety was not involved in his arrest, but offered to pay the cost of transporting him back to Arizona. The surety moved for full or partial remission of the forfeiture and appealed denial of its motion. The Court noted that the defendant had no valid excuse for failing to appear, and that the surety played no role in his re-arrest. The Court thought that the trial court had considered appropriate factors and was within its discretion in refusing to remit any portion of the bond. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Arizona Case Law 2011
In Tiritilli v. State, 2011 WL 1138204 (Ariz.App. March 29, 2011) an individual posted a bond for the defendant and was indemnitor to a surety for a second bond. The defendant failed to appear, the bonds were forfeited, and the individual appealed. On the second bond the defendant was in federal custody on the date he failed to appear, but the Court denied relief and stated, “The fact that a defendant is in custody elsewhere as an offered explanation or excuse for failing to appear is effectual only when there is evidence that the custody was not due to the defendant’s commission of an offense subsequent to release on the subject bond.” The individual appellant did not present evidence as to when the federal offense was committed, and the judgment forfeiting both bonds was affirmed.
In State v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., 2011 WL 846561 (Ariz.App. March 10, 2011) the defendant twice failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. There was no reasonable cause offered for his failure to appear. Less than three months later, and before the bond was forfeited, border patrol agents arrested the defendant entering the United States from Mexico and turned him over to California authorities. There was no evidence that the surety aided in his capture. Initially, the trial court denied the surety’s motion for exoneration because the defendant had not been returned to Arizona but suggested that if he was returned the surety could renew their request for a partial refund. He was eventually returned to Arizona. The surety did not procure his return but did offer to pay the cost of returning him. The trial court again denied any relief from the forfeiture and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court acted within its discretion and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the surety’s motions.
Arizona Case Law 2010
In re Bond in the Amount of $75,000, 2010 WL 3528868 (Ariz.App. September 10, 2010) affirmed forfeiture of an appearance bond. The defendant posted the bond and was deported a few days later. He failed to appear at pretrial proceedings and for trial. The State elected to try him in absentia, and he was acquitted. The trial court then noticed a show cause hearing on the bond and forfeited the entire amount. On appeal, the surety argued that the court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond upon the defendant’s acquittal. The Court held that the bond proceedings were in the nature of a civil action for breach of the contract between the surety and the State and did not depend on the criminal proceeding for jurisdiction. The surety argued that the bond was exonerated by the acquittal before any action had been taken to forfeit the bond. The Court held that the bond violation occurred when the defendant did not appear and his subsequent acquittal did not require exoneration. Finally, the surety argued that the trial court’s failure to issue an arrest warrant before setting the show cause hearing violated Arizona Rule of Crim. Proc. 7.6(c) and required exoneration of the bond. The Court agreed that the Rule required a bench warrant but thought that requirement was separate from the bond forfeiture and that the surety would have to prove prejudice from the court’s failure to issue the warrant. Since the surety here had not shown prejudice, it was not exonerated by the trial court’s failure to follow the Rule.
In State v. Randolph & Company Bail Bonds, 2010 WL 3447411 (Ariz.App. August 31, 2010) the defendant failed to appear for arraignment but the court vacated and reset the arraignment date. When he again failed to appear, the court issued a bench warrant and he was arrested later that day. At the bail forfeiture hearing, a non-lawyer representative of the bail agency appeared but did not object to the court’s use of the first nonappearance date to forfeit the bond. On appeal of a judgment forfeiting the bond, the Court held that the objection was waived by not being presented in the trial court and that the surety’s appearance by a non-lawyer was effectively a failure to appear. Having failed to appear, the surety did not meet its burden of establishing good cause for the defendant’s default. This is the third recent Arizona case refusing to let the non-lawyer bail bond agent represent the surety in the trial court.
In re Bond Forfeiture in Pinal County Cause No. CR-200800344, 2010 WL 2039169 (Ariz.App. May 24, 2010) considered the surety’s appeal of an order forfeiting the entire bond amount. The defendant pled guilty and appeared for sentencing. The sentencing was continued, and the court permitted the defendant to remain on bond after warning her that at the next hearing she “should be prepared not to go home.” The defendant did not appear at the next hearing, and the bond was forfeited. The surety argued that the trial court violated Criminal Rule 7.2(c)(1) by not remanding the defendant to prison at the first hearing. This Rule requires incarceration prior to sentencing if the court determines that the defendant “will in all reasonable probability suffer a sentence of imprisonment.” In this case, probation was possible under the defendant’s plea agreement, and the trial court found that at the time of the first hearing it had not determined “in all reasonable probability” to sentence the defendant to serve time in prison. The Court of Appeals held that this finding was not an abuse of discretion. It also rejected the surety’s argument that failure to follow Rule 7.2(c)(1) was a mitigating factor justifying partial remission of the bond because it held there was no failure to follow the Rule. The Court affirmed forfeiture of the bond.
In State v. Aalpha Bonding & Services, LLC, 2010 WL 1685992 (Ariz.App. April 27, 2010) the defendant failed to appear for a conference on November 17, 2008, but he was re-arrested by the Sheriff’s Department on December 8. The individual bail agent, as agent for the bail agency and the surety, filed an affidavit to exonerate the bond on the ground that the defendant was in custody. On December 31 the defendant filed a similar motion. The court determined that the defendant violated the conditions of his pretrial release and set a bond forfeiture hearing. At the hearing, the Commissioner forfeited the entire bond. The bail agency appealed. The individual agent was present at the hearing on behalf of the agency and surety, but no attorney appeared on their behalf. The Court treated the bail agency and surety as not appearing or contesting forfeiture because the non-attorney agent could not represent them. The Court thought that the record showed the defendant’s failure to appear in violation of the obligation of the bond and since no evidence was presented to justify or excuse the violation, forfeiture of the entire bond was within the trial court’s discretion.
In State v. Eazy Bail Bonds, 2010 WL 1636891 (Ariz.App. April 22, 2010) the defendant failed to appear and the court set a bond forfeiture hearing. At the hearing, the president of one of the bail bond agents appeared as the “agent” of the surety and the corporate agents. She was not, however, an attorney. The trial court heard her arguments and evidence that the defendant was dead and entered judgment forfeiting the bond. The agents and surety, by counsel, asked for a new trial and appealed when it was denied. The Court held that as business entities the agents and surety could appear only by counsel. Since they effectively had not appeared or offered evidence to show a grounds to set aside the forfeiture until after judgment was entered, they could not challenge the judgment on appeal. The Court recognized that practices with regard to representation of bail agents and sureties had not been consistent and that the trial court acquiesced in the non-attorney’s participation in this case, but neither the litigants nor the trial court can change the rules on practice of law, and this decision will be published to clarify the issue. [Published].
In State v. Bail Bonds USA, 2010 WL 129674 (Ariz.App. January 14, 2010) the surety posted a bond for the defendant, who was turned over to federal immigration authorities rather than released. She remained in federal custody. The defendant failed to appear for arraignment and the bond was forfeited. The Court of Appeals thought that if the State could obtain the return of the defendant from the federal authorities, the bond should be exonerated. On the other hand, if the defendant was deported or otherwise not available to the State, the bond could be forfeited. The Court vacated the judgment of forfeiture and remanded the case to give the surety an opportunity to demonstrate that the State could obtain return of the defendant.
In State v. Randolph & Company Bail Bonds, Inc., 2010 WL 326274 (Ariz.App. January 28, 2010) a stranger to the bail bond filed an affidavit that he had provided funds and indemnified for the bond and sought a continuance of the forfeiture hearing. The trial court thought the indemnitor did not have standing to be heard in connection with the bond forfeiture and denied his motion for a continuance. On the alleged indemnitor’s appeal, the Court reversed and held that an indemnitor or depositor does have standing to be heard in connection with forfeiture of the bond, and the affidavit raised an issue of fact as to the appellant’s standing. The Court remanded the case for a factual determination of the appellant’s interest.
Arizona Case Law 2009
In State v. MC’s Bail Bonds, 2009 WL 387759 (Ariz.App. February 17, 2009) the defendant failed to appear at a settlement conference. The court issued a warrant and scheduled a bond forfeiture hearing. A few days later, and before the scheduled forfeiture hearing, the defendant was arrested on an unrelated federal charge. The surety moved to exonerate the bond because the defendant was in custody. The trial court denied the surety’s motion and forfeited the bond. The surety appealed but did not request that the trial court issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as it had a right to do under the Arizona Rules. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not have to accept the defendant’s proffered excuse for not appearing. The statute gave the court discretion to remit the forfeiture because the defendant was in custody prior to the forfeiture hearing, but did not require it to, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Finally, the surety’s argument that the trial court failed to consider the relevant factors was speculation since it did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court had to assume that the trial court followed the law and that the evidence supported its decision.
In State v. Liberty Bail Bonds, 2009 WL 1212499 (Ariz.App. May 5, 2009) the surety appealed from forfeiture of its bond on the ground that it was prejudiced by late notice of the defendant’s failure to appear. The surety, however, did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court or obtain transcripts of the various hearings in the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the time to give notice should be computed pursuant to the rules of civil procedure and, therefore, intervening Saturdays and Sundays were not counted. The defendant failed to appear on December 5, 2007, and the court issued a bench warrant and scheduled a bond forfeiture hearing. The minute entry evidencing the court’s actions was filed on December 17. The Court found that posting the order on December 17 was notice to the surety and that it was within the ten day period required by Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.6.C.1. The Court noted that the record on appeal did not include findings of fact or transcripts and as a consequence it could not say that the trial court erred. There was nothing in the record to overcome the presumption that the trial court knew the law and properly applied it in rendering its decision.
In State v. MC’s Bail Bonds, 2009 WL 1383467 (Ariz.App. May 14, 2009) the defendant was accused of a shooting and the surety provided a bond. After the bond was issued, the indictment added two counts of attempted murder. The defendant appeared at his arraignment, waived a formal reading of the charges, and pled not guilty. He did not appear for the initial pretrial conference, and the court set a bond forfeiture hearing. Despite time extensions, the defendant was not recovered. The surety argued that addition of the two attempted murder counts increased its risk and discharged the bond. The Court disagreed and found that the condition of the bond remained appearance, there was no justification offered for the failure to appear, and there was no evidence that the defendant even knew of the added attempted murder charges or that they induced hi to flee. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in forfeiting the entire amount of the bond.
In State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds, 2009 WL 2058871 (Ariz.App. July 16, 2009) the indemnitor who allegedly paid the premium appealed forfeiture of the bond. The Court held that a depositor or indemnitor has standing to contest forfeiture of a bond and remanded the case for the trial court to resolve any factual disputes as to the indemnitor’s interest in the bond. The Court also thought there were disputed issues of fact as to the indemnitor’s role in returning the defendant to custody after his failure to appear and noted that merely informing the police of the defendant’s location was not sufficient to justify exoneration of the bond. Finally, the Court held that the defendant’s excuse for his failure to appear – that he was not aware of the re-scheduled court date – was inadequate as a matter of law. The defendant was obligated to communicate with his lawyer and stay informed on developments in his case.
Arizona Case Law 2008
Heath v. Kiger, 176 P.3d 690 (Ariz. 2008) held that a defendant released on her own recognizance was “admitted to bail” for purposes of an exception in the sufficient sureties clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Constitution provides that bail can be denied if the defendant has been arrested for a felony offense committed while admitted to bail on a separate felony charge. The defendant was arrested on three felony drug charges, released on her own recognizance, and then arrested on additional felony drug charges. The Court held that she could be held without bond.
In State v. Liberty Bail Bonds, 2008 WL 4095513 (Ariz.App. January 24, 2008) the defendant failed to appear, and the court set a hearing to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. Prior to the hearing, the surety recovered the defendant and surrendered him to the Sheriff. The bail agency was a limited liability company. At the hearing, the owner of the agency attempted to appear for the agency and the surety. The State objected, and the court agreed that as a non-attorney the owner could not represent the agency or the surety. The record, however, showed that the defendant had been surrendered. The court forfeited two-thirds of the bond amount, and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed that the owner of the bail agency could not represent the agency or corporate surety. It thought the better practice would have been for the trial court to have permitted him to testify as a witness and itself questioned him to establish the facts, but that under the circumstances it was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion not to have done so. The Court affirmed the judgment forfeiting two-thirds of the bond amount.
In State v. Bartley, 2008 WL 4148944 (Ariz.App. January 10, 2008) the surety posted a bond for a defendant against whom INS had placed a hold. The defendant was released to INS and deported to Jamaica. He did not appear and the bond was forfeited. The surety denied it was aware of the INS hold and claimed to be surprised by the deportation, but the Court noted that information on the INS hold was in the bonding paperwork available to the surety and that the surety did not petition the Attorney General to permit the defendant’s return to appear in the court case. The Court thought the surety assumed the risk of the defendant’s failure to appear and under the facts of the case the non-appearance was not excused by the deportation. The Court held that forfeiture of the bond was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
In State v. Azteca Bail Bonds, 2008 WL 4173295 (Ariz.App. February 26, 2008) the defendant failed to appear at his initial pretrial conference. After a series of hearings, the court eventually entered a judgment forfeiting the bond, and the surety appealed. The surety argued that on the date of the pretrial conference the defendant was in jail in the same County that was prosecuting the case. The Court recognized that case law from other jurisdictions held the bond could not be forfeited if the State itself prevented the defendant from appearing, but the Court did not reach that issue because the record on appeal did not establish the factual basis for the surety’s contentions. The surety did not provide transcripts of the various hearings, so it was impossible to establish the facts before the trial court or the basis for its decision. The surety had the duty to furnish the relevant transcripts or recordings if it believed the trial court’s ruling was not justified by the evidence, and in the absence of such recordings or transcripts the Court of Appeals had to assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. There was no basis on which the Court could find that the trial court abused its discretion.
In State v. Ameribail Bail Bonds, Inc., 2008 WL 4182433 (Ariz.App. April 15, 2008) there was some confusion over the defendant’s correct name, but the court record included both his name and an alias and the fact that there was an INS hold on him. The surety wrote the bond in the name of the alias, and the INS deported him. When he failed to appear at the next scheduled hearing, the bond was forfeited. He appeared, however, two months later at the bond show cause hearing. Nevertheless, the court forfeited the bond and the surety appealed. The surety argued that the court abused its discretion in forfeiting the bond because of the confusion over the names, because the defendant in fact returned to the United States to face the charges, and because the bond should have been exonerated when the defendant appeared at the show cause hearing. The Court rejected each argument and affirmed judgment against the surety. The Court held that the surety was obligated to exercise care in ascertaining the identity and circumstances of the defendant it proposed to bond. The surety ran the risk that the defendant gave it inaccurate information, and it is not the jail’s obligation to perform the surety’s investigation. Here, the court records had both his correct name and the alias. The defendant’s return to the United States and subsequent appearance did not change the fact that the bond was breached. Unless the bond was not been breached and was no longer needed, neither of which occurred here, the trial court had discretion to forfeit all or part of the bond, and it did not abuse that discretion.
In State v. Liberty Bail Bonds, 2008 WL 4516394 (Ariz.App. October 2, 2008) two Mexican nationals were arrested in a drug transaction. The surety provided bonds for both defendants. After they were deported, the defendants failed to appear. The trial court forfeited one bond but exonerated the other. The surety and bail agent appealed the forfeiture. The defendant whose bond was exonerated was deported three days after the bond was posted and before arraignment. The court found no evidence this defendant had notice of his court proceedings. The other defendant was deported after he had appeared for arraignment. He had notice of his obligations to appear, and there was no evidence in the record of any effort by the defendant, the surety or the agent to arrange his return. The bail agent argued that forfeiting the bond of the second defendant was a denial of equal protection because the trial court treated the two defendants differently. The Court held that the different facts justified the disparate treatment. The agent argued that deportation of the defendant justified his failure to appear, but the Court held that the surety knowingly bonded an alien and ran the risk he would be deported. There was no evidence of any attempt by the defendant to keep in contact with his attorney or to return for his court obligations and no evidence of attempts by the surety to secure his return. The court did not abuse its discretion in forfeiting the bond.
Arizona Case Law 2007
In re Forfeiture in the Amount of $10,000, 2007 WL 5369150 (Ariz.App. July 10, 2007) affirmed the trial court’s exercise of its discretion not to remit any portion of a bond forfeiture. The defendant failed to appear and the court issued a bench warrant. Several months later, the court held a hearing on the state’s application for a rule to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. The defendant had fled to Mexico, but the surety located him there and brought him to the U.S. border. While the defendant was at U.S. Customs, they called the local police who did not locate the warrant and did not arrest the defendant. The court held that the bond was properly forfeited because forfeiture is based on the defendant’s actions, not the surety’s, and here the defendant willfully fled to Mexico. On the issue of remitting all or any part of the forfeiture, the trial court has discretion. The trial court considered the surety’s unsuccessful efforts to return the defendant to custody and the other factors required, and thus did not abuse its discretion in not remitting any of the forfeiture.
Arizona Case Law 2005
Fragoso v. Fell, 2005 WL 1097302 (Ariz. App. May 10, 2005) held that the Arizona Constitution guarantee of a right to bail with “sufficient sureties” did not prevent the trial court from requiring a “cash only” bond. The Court discussed conflicting decisions on this issue from other states with the same or similar constitutional provisions and concluded that cash was a form of surety within the discretion of the court. The dissenting Judge would have held that a surety is a third party guarantor not a deposit of cash and thus a right to bail with sufficient sureties meant the court had to accept an appropriate surety bond and could not insist on only cash.
Arizona Case Law 2004
In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County, 93 P.3d 1084 (Ariz. App. 2004) affirmed the trial court’s judgment forfeiting the entire bond even though the defendant had been deported to Mexico. The court noted that: (1) the surety assumes the risk the defendant will not appear; (2) the surety could easily have ascertained that there was an INS “hold” on the defendant who, in fact, gave his only address as General Delivery, Nogales, Sonora, Mexico; (3) the surety did nothing to try to prevent the defendant’s deportation, locate him in Mexico or secure his return for trial; and (4) there was no evidence the defendant attempted to return for trial.