In County of Los Angeles v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. B221528 (Cal.App. July 8, 2011) the defendant failed to appear, and the court revoked bail, forfeited the bond and issued a bench warrant.  The clerk’s minute order, however, said that the bond was exonerated.  The court duly sent notice of forfeiture to the surety and agent, but the notice had the wrong bond number.  The agent checked the file and obtained a copy of the minute order showing that the bond had been exonerated.  After the 180 day appearance period, the court corrected the minute order and entered summary judgment against the surety.  The surety moved to set aside the judgment, and the trial court granted the motion.  The court rejected the surety’s argument based on the error in the bond number but thought it was reasonable for the surety to rely on the minute order and not risk seizing the defendant on a bond that may have been exonerated.  The County appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court found that although the statutory requirements for judgment had been met, there were also equitable considerations that justified relief to the surety.  The trial court’s decision was reviewed for abuse of discretion and in light of the principle that the law disfavors forfeitures.  Under these circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in setting aside the judgment against the surety.  [Not published.]

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, criminal, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds

In People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Case No. G043705 (Cal.App. June 3, 2011) the surety obtained an 180 day extension of the appearance period.  As the extended period was about to expire, the surety moved to toll the running of the period on the ground that the defendant had been located in Mexico and the District Attorney was going to seek extradition.  The trial court denied the surety’s motion and entered summary judgment on the bond.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  Penal Code §1305(e) permitted tolling based on a temporary disability, but there was none alleged here.  Penal Code §1305(g) permitted exoneration if the defendant was identified and temporarily detained and the District Attorney’s office declined to extradite, but here the defendant was not detained as required by subsection (g) and the District Attorney wanted to extradite.  The surety argued that the bond should not have been forfeited because the defendant was available for extradition.  The Court rejected that argument and held that, unless §1305(e) applied, the defendant either had to be returned within the appearance period or the District Attorney had to refuse to extradite the defendant after he was detained and identified pursuant to §1305(g).  Here neither happened, and the Court affirmed the judgment.  [Not published].

In County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety Co., 2011 WL 2152793 (Cal.App. June 2, 2011) the bail agent was told the defendant had been arrested in another state.  He told another agent who called the clerk.  The agent asked about the status of the bond in “the David Oliver case” and was told the bond had been exonerated.  The agents then took no further action.  There were two cases for the same defendant, and the bond in the other case had been exonerated.  Summary judgment was eventually entered on the bond, and the surety appealed.  The Court rejected the surety’s argument that the misinformation from the clerk justified granting equitable relief.  The Court thought that the clerk’s information was accurate and that the agent should have specified the case or the bond number or amount.  There also was no proof that the defendant actually was incarcerated in another state, just the agent’s declaration of what he was told.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion, and the Court affirmed denial of relief from forfeiture of the bond and summary judgment.  [Not published].

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, criminal, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds

Read article here

Two bail bondsmen were shot early Tuesday morning by a police officer responding to a report of an armed home invasion at an apartment complex at 3539 Beach Blvd., according to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.JSO Chief John Hartley said one bondsman was shot and killed, and a second who was shot by the officer was in critical condition at Shands Jacksonville Medical Center. A third bondsman was not shot, but taken to Shands for an evaluation.Hartley said officers were called at 1:53 a.m. to the Mayfair Village apartment complex to assist the men in arresting someone for a revoked driver’s license and an expired license plate. Police and the bondsmen, who were unarmed at the time, knocked on the door of the person they were hoping to arrest.

When no one answered the door, the officers left, Hartley said. He said it turned out people were inside the apartment and the bondsmen did not leave the complex when the officers did.At 2:02 a.m., police got a call from a woman inside the apartment. She told police that armed men dressed in black were outside her apartment and they were trying to kick down her door. Hartley said she stayed on the phone until police arrived.When a new set of officers responded to a call of armed home invasion, they surrounded the building. Police said Officer Jason Bailey saw one man with a mask, gloves, dressed in black and holding a shotgun, and Bailey fired his AR-15 rifle. That man died at the scene.”I wake up and look out my window and see a man with a sawed-off shotgun and a cop standing right here with an AR-15,” a neighbor said.Hartley said Bailey came into contact with a second man and fired multiple shots, critically injuring that man.Hartley said at least one of the bondsmen was wearing a mask. Why he was wearing a mask is one of many questions police and the state attorney’s office hope to answer during the investigation of this police-involved shooting.Names of the bondsmen and their agencies were not released at the scene. Police will hold a news conference Wednesday.Bailey was placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation.Ann Teague, president of Jacksonville Bail Agent Association and a bail bonds agent since 1975, said she has heard of certain bail bondsmen wearing masks to conceal their identity.Teague said it’s procedure for bondsmen to identify themselves as bondsmen and make police aware of what’s going on. She said if they think someone is inside a home, they can break the door down to arrest that person.”Normally, (bondsmen are) going to call (police) and say, ‘We’re out here to pick up someone,’” Teague said.Teague said that while the charges against the suspect in this case appear to be minor, she said the suspect’s entire history must be taken into consideration. Teague said, for instance, that the person could have had a $50,000 bond because of a violent history. It’s unclear in this case.Teague said bondsmen often work in the middle of the night and sometimes call police for assistance, as they did in this case.”It’s a very bad idea, 2 o’clock in the morning, you’re out and about. You’re in all black clothing. You’ve got an assault rifle. That’s not what you want to wake up and see,” Channel 4 crime analyst Ken Jefferson said.Jefferson said bondsman are state-licensed agents backed by insurers and permitted to pick up criminals. He said he hasn’t heard of any problems in the area before.

Tags: bail, bail agent, dog the bounty hunter, fugitive, jail, murderer

A Houston man accused of using a chainsaw to decapitate the body of his best friend and roommate after shooting him in the head will continue to be held without bail, a judge ruled today.

Dressed in an orange jail uniform, Noe Morin, 32, appeared before state District Judge Herb Ritchie, charged with murdering Marlon Thomas.

Police found Thomas’s body Sunday after Noe asked neighbor Adrian Bias to help him fix his chainsaw, then led him to the backyard of the Fifth Ward duplex Morin shared with his best friend.

Morin told Bias to look through a hole in the fence into the backyard of a vacant home next door.

Bias peeked through the opening and saw a headless body.

Morin said the body belonged to “Marlo,” a nickname for Thomas.

“That is what I do when people steal from me,” he told Bias.

Tags: bail, bail bonds

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2011 WL 1589555 (Cal.App. April 28, 2011) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the surety’s motion to extend the appearance period.  The supporting affidavit from the surety’s investigator described several unsuccessful attempts to locate the defendant, but the Court thought they showed a delay in retaining the investigator, no success in finding the defendant and essentially a hope the police would eventually arrest him.  The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision did not exceed the bounds of reason and should be affirmed.  [Not published].

People v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 2011 WL 1589554 (Cal.App. April 28, 2011) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend the appearance period.  The Court noted that events occurring after expiration of the appearance period are not considered in determining whether the surety has shown cause for an extension and concluded, “There are huge gaps in Morgan’s declaration indicating that he did very little for extended periods of time.  Nor is there any explanation for the failure to undertake many common sense tasks.  The substantial progress made after the expiration of the exoneration period underscores the lack of effort made during the exoneration period.”  [Not published].

County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., Case No. B219215 (Cal.App. April 14, 2011) affirmed summary judgment on the bond.  On the day of arraignment the prosecution filed six special sentence enhancements based on six prior convictions but did not change the charge or the underlying facts on which it was based.  The defendant failed to appear, and on the day the extended appearance period expired the court denied the surety’s motion to exonerate the bond and entered summary judgment.  The summary judgment was one day premature, and the surety argued that on its direct appeal the judgment had to be set aside.  The Court held that the judgment was voidable, not void, and in the absence of a showing of prejudice from the premature entry there was no basis to disturb the judgment.  The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the sentence enhancements increased its risk without its consent.  The bond provided that the defendant would appear to answer any charge “based upon the acts supporting the complaint.”  Here the only acts alleged were the ones upon which the original charge was based.  The surety agreed in the bond to be responsible for the defendant’s appearance to answer charges based on those acts, and so its risk was not increased without its consent.  [Not published].

In County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., Case No. B219561 (Cal.App. April 14, 2011) the defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and given probation.  The court revoked his probation and set bail at $50,000.  The surety provided the bond, but the defendant failed to appear on the appearance date stated in the bond.  The court forfeited the bond.  Within the appearance period, an attorney appeared for the defendant and asked that the bench warrant be recalled and a new appearance date set.  The court refused, denied the surety’s request to extend the appearance period, and entered summary judgment on the bond.  The surety appealed arguing that the appearance of counsel was appearance by the defendant pursuant to Penal Code §977, and the court therefore lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond.  The Court thought that §977 did not apply to this probation case, and all of the grounds to vacate a forfeiture under Penal Code §1305 required the personal appearance, custody, or disability of the defendant.  The Court stated, “As the trial court noted, it could not have ordered counsel to jail in place of Closs.  Where Closs failed to personally appear when his presence was lawfully required, the trial court properly refused to recall the warrant and never lost jurisdiction over the bond.”  The Court affirmed the summary judgment.  [Not published].

In County of Los Angeles v. Bankers Insurance Co., 2011 WL 1315401 (Cal.App. April 7, 2011) the surety filed a timely motion to extend the appearance period accompanied by an affidavit explaining its efforts to date and expectation of recovering the defendant if granted the extension.  The trial court found that the surety had been diligent but had not shown that the defendant would be located if the extension was granted.  The trial court denied the motion but stated that it would vacate the forfeiture if the defendant was returned by a certain date a little over a month away.  Without waiting for the court’s date to pass, summary judgment was entered on the bond and the surety appealed.  The surety argued that the trial court had granted a de facto extension even though it ostensibly denied the surety’s motion.  The Court of Appeals held that the motion had clearly and unequivocally been denied and that the denial was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.  The Court affirmed the summary judgment.

In People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. E050297 (Cal.App. March 16, 2011) the defendant executed a waiver of appearance under Penal Code §977.  He, therefore, could appear by counsel at certain hearings without being personally present.  He was still required, however, to appear at his preliminary hearing, trial and sentencing.  He made several motions to continue the preliminary hearing, and the motions were granted on the day the hearing was scheduled.  In each instance, he was not present although his attorney was.  He appeared at the actual preliminary hearing and trial but failed to appear for sentencing.  The court forfeited the bond, and the surety moved to set aside the forfeiture on the ground that his previous unexcused absences required forfeiture at that time and, having failed to declare a forfeiture then, the court lost jurisdiction over the bond and could not forfeit it when the defendant did not appear for sentencing.  The Court thought that at each of the initial court dates for a preliminary hearing the case was not called for the preliminary hearing. First, the case was called for the pending motion to continue the preliminary hearing, for which the defendant did not have to be present.  Since each of the motions for a continuance was granted, the case was not called for the preliminary hearing.  Therefore, he did not fail to appear on those dates.  The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the trial court’s minutes that the defendant was ordered to return “on any and all future hearing dates” meant he had been ordered to appear personally in spite of the §977 waiver.  He was present by counsel, and the record did not suggest the court intended to order his personal appearance.  [Not published].

In People v. Ontiveros, Case No. D057121 (Cal.App., 4th Dist. March 7, 2011) the defendant was ordered to appear for arraignment on December 22, 2009.  The court called the case on December 21.  Not surprisingly, neither the defendant nor the surety appeared.  The court forfeited the bond and issued a bench warrant.  On December 22 the defendant and the surety were in court and asked the court to call the case so the defendant could note his appearance, but the court refused because the clerk could not find the file.  The court denied the surety’s motion to vacate the forfeiture.  The court reasoned that although the forfeiture on December 21 was erroneous, the defendant did not “appear” on December 22.  The surety appealed and the People did not file a brief.  The Court reversed the order denying the surety’s motion to vacate.  The Court held that the defendant’s failure to appear on December 22 was caused by the trial court’s refusal to call the case rather than by any fault of the defendant.  Therefore, the defendant had a “sufficient excuse” for not appearing, and no forfeiture should have been entered.  [Not published].

In County of Los Angeles v. Lincoln General Insurance Co., 2011 WL 711850 (Cal.App. March 2, 2011) the surety was granted a 60 day extension of the appearance period based on affidavits from two of its investigators describing their efforts to locate the defendant.  The surety made a timely request for a second extension supported by another affidavit.  The court denied the request and eventually entered summary judgment.  The surety appealed and argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the second request.  The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court.  The trial court looked at both the surety’s efforts to date and the prospects that it would be successful if granted more time.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request. [Not Published].

In County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 2011 WL 652785 (Cal.App. February 24, 2011) the defendant appeared at three regularly scheduled hearings.  At the fourth hearing he did not appear.  The defendant’s counsel expressed surprise, but did not offer any excuse for his absence.  The court continued the case and did not forfeit the bond.  At the next scheduled hearing the defendant appeared and the court reset the pretrial conference.  The defendant failed to appear for the conference, and the court forfeited the bond.  Notice was mailed to the surety and eventually a summary judgment was entered.  The surety appealed from denial of its motion to set aside the judgment and exonerate the bond.  The surety argued that the trial court had to forfeit the bond when the defendant first failed to appear without an excuse, and that the failure to do so deprived the court of jurisdiction to forfeit the bond at a later date.  The Court held that the trial court had to have only reason to believe that an excuse may exist for the failure to appear and that the defendant’s prior, consistent appearances, and his counsel’s surprise at his non-appearance, were sufficient basis for a belief an excuse might have existed.  The Court stated, “The dispositive factor, in our view, is that Castillo made regular court appearances before he missed a court appearance.  Upon Castillo’s first miss, the court reasonably could have believed that he may have had a valid excuse.”  [Not published].

In People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 WL 489927 (Cal.App. February 14, 2011) the surety provided the bond but the trial court signed an order pursuant to Penal Code §1275.1 that the defendant not be released pending a determination that the funds used for his bail were not feloniously obtained.  The surety was not aware of the §1275.1 order although it was part of the court file.  The Sheriff erroneously released the defendant on the bond even though the §1275.1 hearing had not taken place.  At the hearing the court expressed doubt about the source of the funds but continued the hearing and allowed the defendant to remain free on the bond.  The defendant did not appear at the renewed hearing, and the court forfeited the bond and eventually entered summary judgment.  The surety appealed denial of its motion to set aside the judgment.  The surety argued that release of the defendant in violation of §1275.1 voided the bond.  The Court thought that the intent of §1275.1 was to assure that a defendant did not secure release by using fraudulently obtained funds, not to benefit the surety.  The Court held, “We conclude noncompliance with section 1275.1 does not operate to exonerate a surety’s liability and is not a defense to forfeiture on the bail bond.”  The surety also argued that the agent did not know about the §1275.1 hold or the hearings in connection with it and would not have written the bond if she did.  The Court thought that was the surety’s fault, and not a defense to forfeiture of the bond, since the information was available from the superior court docket and file.  [Published].

In People v. Seneca Insurance Co., No. A126642 (Cal.App. January 31, 2011) the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine base and released on bond in July, 2008.  He failed to appear for a preliminary hearing in October, 2008, and notice was mailed to the surety.  The surety filed a timely motion to set aside the forfeiture and exonerate the bond because the defendant had been arrested on another charge, turned over to immigration authorities and deported.  The surety submitted evidence that he was deported to Honduras on November 26, 2008.  The trial court granted the surety’s motion, and the People appealed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the surety that the defendant was unable to appear within the appearance period because he was detained by civil authorities within the meaning of Penal Code §1305(d).  The Court acknowledged that the mere fact of deportation does not amount to detention by civil authorities, but here the charge against him would prevent his legal return to the United States.  The Court cited federal authority for the proposition that an alien known to have been an illicit drug trafficker is ineligible for entry.  The Court noted that the law abhors a forfeiture, and the surety therefore had a relatively low threshold of proof.  The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the surety’s motion.  The Court also rejected the People’s argument that the surety had to submit all of its proof within the appearance period.  The surety had to make its motion for relief prior to the expiration of the period, and the motion had to be heard within 30 days of the end of the period, but the evidence could be presented at the hearing as long as it was proof of facts that existed during the appearance period.  [Not published].

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, criminal, fugitive, los angeles bail bonds

The bail bondsman who posted the money to get a McConnellsburg man out of jail the day before he killed his estranged girlfriend and himself may be required to forfeit $100,000 to Fulton County.

Professional bail bondsman Paul Weachter, Chambersburg, appeared at a hearing Tuesday in McConnellsburg for consideration of a petition for bail forfeiture filed by Fulton County District Attorney Travis Kendall.

Judge Angela Krom heard arguments from both sides, and is now considering the matter.

Weachter issued a $100,000 surety bond Feb. 19 on behalf of Ricky Lynn Hann, 51. Hann was charged with breaking into the Ayr Township home of Tina Souders, 39, threatening to kill her and holding her prisoner for about 24 hours. Magisterial District Judge Carol Johnson arraigned Hann and set his bail.

After his release, Hann went back to Souders’ home the next day, kidnapped her at gunpoint a second time and took her to a nearby wooded area. There, he shot her to death before turning the gun on himself.

“If he had just killed himself without murdering his victim first, I don’t think we would have sought forfeiture at all,” Kendall said Wednesday during a phone interview.

Similar in some ways to an insurance policy, a surety bond is issued by an authorized agent to ensure that someone charged with a crime will appear in court as required. Defendants typically pay bondsmen a small percentage of the set bail in exchange for the bond.

If a forfeiture order is

granted by the court, Weachter would be required to pay the full amount of the bond, $100,000.According to the rules of criminal procedure, a posted bond may be forfeited if the defendant fails to appear or violates any other set conditions, Kendall said. Violations include committing any crime, or any act done to retaliate against or intimidate a victim or witness.

“We interpret the murder of Tina Souders to be just that,” Kendall said.

Weachter’s attorney, Clinton Barkdoll, said he has several arguments against the petition. He called the district attorney’s request “highly unusual,” but added that he “certainly has the discretion to do this.”

His client, a retired law enforcement officer, has been a bail bondsman for about 20 years, Barkdoll said. He said case law dictates that Kendall has to show actual costs incurred as a result of Hann’s actions before Weacther has to forfeit the money.

“We don’t believe the commonwealth has demonstrated what the financial damages are on this,” he said.

Barkdoll also argues that because Hann is dead and the criminal charges against him will be abated, Weachter’s surety bond should be considered “nullified.”

“That’s one of several arguments,” he said. “It’s a fairly technical, complicated legal issue.”

Asked about the rationale behind his petition, Kendall said he is “just trying to do the right thing.” He does not believe he has to show any loss of money by the commonwealth to justify the forfeiture.

“It’s rather difficult to put a value against a victim not being retaliated against, intimidated or murdered,” he said. “I have nothing against bondsmen. I think they are providing an absolutely necessary service, but I think bondsmen should evaluate the risks of a case before they write the bond.”

————

Jim Tuttle can be reached at jtuttle@publicopinionnews.com or at 262-4754.

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, forfeiture, murder, nationwide bail bonds

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, los angeles bail bonds, nationwide bail bonds

SANTA ANA – A man who prosecutors say plotted with three co-defendants to solicit clients from the Orange County Jail has been charged with acting as a bail bonds agent without a license.

Ernesto Perez, 36, of Burbank pleaded not guilty Thursday to 21 felony counts of negotiating bail without a license and 16 felony counts of identity theft. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 27 years in state prison. He is being held in lieu of $150,000 bail.

Three co-defendants, who are in custody for other unrelated crimes, are scheduled to be arraigned April 12 on other felony counts in the plot. They are: Jonathan Thomas Campos, 27, Jason Anthony Gatewood, 22, and Mark Ward, 47. Their hometowns weren’t immediately available.

California law prohibits any person from negotiating the execution or delivery of bail unless they are a bail bonds licensee, according to a news release from the District Attorney’s Office. If Perez had been a licensed bail bondsman, his actions would still be criminal, the office said, because state law prohibits licensees from unlawfully soliciting bail business from any inmate or incarcerated person to protect them from undue influence during a vulnerable time in their lives.

In regards to Campos, Gatewood and Ward, California law prohibits any person without a bail bonds license from arranging for the bail of another for compensation or receiving commission for a bail transaction, the news release said.

Between Aug. 5, 2010, and Feb. 24, Campos, Gatewood and Ward were in custody in Orange County Jail. During this time, Perez is accused of plotting with the men for them to solicit other inmates in custody to contact Perez to provide their bail, the release said.

Perez was employed by Plotkin Bail Bonds but is not a licensed bail bondsman, prosecutors said.

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, criminal, fugitive, jail

MONCKS CORNER, SC (WCSC) – A bail bondsman in Moncks Corner is facing charges after police say he pocketed over $5,000 that was meant to bail out a woman’s family member in January and February.

According to the Moncks Corner Police Department, 39-year-old Tyrone Maurice Bennett, representing Bennett Bail Bonds, told the victim that he could secure a release for her relative from the Hill Finklea Detention Center in exchange for cash.

The victim paid $5,570 to Bennett in four increments on Jan. 8 and three more dates in early February, a police report states.

The victim’s relative was never bailed out of the detention center and following an investigation by the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Bennett was arrested at Hamilton Bail Bonding on Pine Street on Saturday.

Bennett is charged with a breach of trust over $5,000.

Maybe next time he should actually get the person out of jail.

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, conspiracy, crime, criminal, jail

The existence of bail bondsmen is one of the ways the United States stands out in terms of criminal justice. Although many other countries have bail arrangements, only the Philippines joins the U.S. in allowing private citizens to pursue people who “jump bail.” Even within the U.S., four states — Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin — do not legally permit this practice.

Not a Salary

When a criminal court sets bail for a defendant’s release pending trial, a bail bondsman arranges with the defendant to cover the bulk of the bail. The defendant pays 10 to 15 percent, and the bail bondsman loans the rest of the money. Even if the defendant returns to court on time, the bondsman keeps his original payment — which is the source of a bail bondsman’s income. Bail bondsmen also assume the risk of the defendant “skipping bail,” meaning the bondsman loses the entire bail bond if the defendant fails to appear in court.
Nature of the Work

On a good day, a bail bondsman’s work is similar to that of a loan officer. She sits in an office and processes paperwork related to loans she or her company makes. On a bad day, bail bondsmen need to locate — and sometimes apprehend — their clients to avoid losing large bail loans. This work is more like that of a police or corrections officer and is sometimes subcontracted out to private investigators. Although some bail bondsmen work only regular business hours, there is a lot of money to be made by remaining available evenings, nights and weekends.
Education Requirements

Bail bondsmen are licensed by boards in the state where they do business. This license does not require an advanced degree. However, it may require completing specialized coursework, experience in criminal justice, or a combination of both. All states also require aspiring bondsmen to submit to a criminal history check, and may disqualify candidates with convictions on their records.
Average Salary

Career information website Payscale.com lists the average salary for bail bondsmen at between $21,000 and $49,000 for 2010. This income is divided between a base salary and bonuses or commissions for successfully resolving a bond. Independent bail bondsmen have the opportunity for much higher incomes, but run a greater risk of financial loss and unstable income.

Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, bail bonds los angeles, criminal, jail