In Goodfellas Bail Bonds v. State, 2010 WL 3463385 (Nev. May 7, 2010) the trial court entered a judgment against the surety and the surety appealed.  The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and repeated its holding in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. State, 126 P.3d 1133 (2006) that there is no jurisdiction to appeal “an order denying a motion to remit surety bond or any other order entered in an ancillary bail bond proceeding.” (Emphasis by the Court).

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 State v. Padilla, 2010 WL 3396902 (Minn.App. August 31, 2010) the defendant failed to appear, an order was entered forfeiting the bond, and a copy of the order was mailed to the agent but not to the surety.  The agent and surety moved to reinstate and discharge the bond because the notice required by Minn.R.GenPrac. 702(e) was not given to the surety and the “bondsman.”  The trial court reinstated the bond because the surety was not given notice but refused to discharge it.  Instead, the court gave the surety and agent 30 days to request a hearing.  The court denied a renewed motion to discharge and entered an order forfeiting the bond.  The surety and agent appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that under the Rule “bondsman” was the entity issuing the bond, not the specific employee signing it, and so the requirement of notice to the “bondsman” was met by sending notice to the agent.  The trial court’s reinstatement and 30 days notice cured any prejudice to the surety from the initial failure to notify it.  At the second hearing, the surety did not produce the defendant and has not recovered him.  Applying the Shetsky factors, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to discharge the bond.

(AP) – 20 hours ago

LEXINGTON, S.C. — A South Carolina bail bondsman has been charged with forcing a woman to cook, clean and do sexual favors for him in exchange for getting her out of jail.

Lexington County Sheriff James Metts said Tuesday that 51-year-old Curtis Maroney told the 39-year-old woman he would revoke her bond if she didn’t obey his commands.

After five days, investigators say Maroney drove the woman to visit her children at her father’s home and she called deputies.

Maroney is charged with blackmail and trafficking in persons. He remains in the Lexington County jail. Bond has not been set and it’s not clear if he has an attorney.

Metts says the woman had been arrested for driving under the influence and spent 12 days in jail before Maroney posted her $16,000 bond.

US Jail to Fire LASERS at Violent Prisoners

It’s a non-lethal laser as you probably guessed, but nonetheless, the Assault Intervention Device (measuring 2.2m in height) causes some serious heat when shot at an escapee or fighty prisoner.

From this week, the Pitchess Detention Center will be using it to scare 65 of its 3,700 prisoners, mounting it high up a dormitory wall as an ominous warning against bad behaviour. It’s activated by a joystick, with the laser beam more the size of a CD than a pinpoint like normal lasers.

Any human rights readers up in arms at this news will be pleased to know that prison wardens actually tested the laser on themselves, with Commander Bob Osborne commenting that it’s like “opening an oven door and feeling that blast of hot air, except instead of being all over me, it’s more focused.”

In State v. Nelson, 2010 WL 3220156 (Minn.App. August 17, 2010) the defendant was apprehended by law enforcement personnel two months after he failed to appear.  The surety did not contribute to his re-capture.  The trial court initially reinstated the bond but imposed a 50% penalty because the surety did not serve the defendant with notice of the hearings on its motion to reinstate and discharge the bond.  The Court of Appeals reversed that decision in an opinion reported at 773 N.W.2d 330 (Minn.App. 2009).  Following remand, and without holding a further hearing, the trial court issued an order reviewing the factors for a penalty following reinstatement of a bond (the Shetsky factors) and reached the same result that it had before, i.e. a 50% penalty.  The surety appealed the trial court’s refusal to hold a new hearing and its forfeiture of 50% of the bond.  The Court held that the original two hearings gave the surety ample opportunity to present whatever evidence it had and that the trial court’s application of the Shetsky factors was not an abuse of discretion.  In particular, the surety’s failure to make good faith efforts to apprehend the defendant during the two months in which he was a fugitive supported the trial court’s decision.

In United States v. Powell, 2010 WL 2557388 (N.D.Cal. June 21, 2010) the Magistrate Judge rejected the Government’s argument that the sureties on an appearance bond must demonstrate assets adequate to cover the bond amount.  The Magistrate Judge held that she could order an “unsecured” appearance bond pursuant to the catch-all provision of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3142(c)(1)(xiv): “any other condition that is reasonably necessary” to assure the defendant’s appearance and community safety.

In Arroyo v. Bajramj , 2010 WL 2682750 (Conn.Super. May 26, 2010) a bail agent sued the defendant for an allegedly unpaid balance of the premium.  The parties agreed that bonds totaling $215,000 were provided, $6,450 was paid in cash, and the defendant appeared as required.  The issue was any unpaid balance of the premium.  The documents submitted by the plaintiff were notable for uncompleted blanks and references to security for appearance rather than premium amounts.  They did not state an unpaid premium balance.  The plaintiff argued he was owed $9,150 plus attorneys fees and relied on Conn. G.S. §29-151, which the court found stated a maximum premium but did not set a minimum amount.  The defendant, however, admitted that after he was released he agreed to pay another $2,500 and the court found support for a $150 “B.U.F. Fund” assessment.  The court entered judgment for $2,650 and no attorneys fees.

Read more: Whittier bail bondsman arrested for grand theft – Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_15423574#ixzz0sY2XXmUN

Bondsman charged in “referral scheme”

SANTA ANA – A bail bond agent was arrested Thursday and accused of soliciting attorney referrals and inmate business in an illegal bail bond referral scheme.

Ronald Lee Brockway, 50, of Seal Beach, is charged with two felony counts of violating bail license regulations and faces a maximum sentence of three years and eight months in state prison.

He is being held on $50,000 bail pending his arraignment.

California law prohibits bail bond employees from soliciting bail business from any inmate or incarcerated person, according to a news release from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. The law also prohibits bail bond employees from recommending any attorney to any bail bond client, even if no money changes hands.

Brockway is accused of sending numerous e-mails to attorneys soliciting them to participate in an illegal bail bond scheme with his company, Respect Bail Bond, according to the news release.

In his messages, Brockway is accused of suggesting that the attorneys refer bail bond business to him, while offering to refer clients to the attorneys in order to “increase both of our earnings substantially,” prosecutors said.

Brockway is also accused of unlawfully soliciting business from inmates by mass mailing flyers to the Orange County jail containing the name and contact information for Respect Bail Bond. The flyers read, “Get out of jail today by calling now!”

In October 2005, Brockway testified in an Orange County Grand Jury hearing that he had received cash payments from attorney Joseph Cavallo in exchange for referring arrestees to Cavallo’s law practice.

Brockway was not prosecuted in that case because his testimony was needed in the prosecution of other defendants, prosecutors said.

Cavallo was indicted based partly on Brockway’s testimony. Cavallo pleaded guilty on Oct. 12, 2007, to conspiracy to engage in attorney capping, or paying for clients, and an illegal attorney referral scheme. He was sentenced to six months in jail on Dec. 14, 2007.

The District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation began investigating the current case after a private attorney contacted the OCDA to report receiving the e-mail from Brockway regarding the illegal referral scheme.

Contact the writer: lwelborn@ocregister.com or 714-834-3784