State v. Bradley5/5/2005
Factual Background
The Appellant, Clarence Keeley, d/b/a A-Bail Bond Company, is a professional bondsman who is authorized to act as surety on bail bonds in the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District. This case stems from the May 6, 2001 arrest of Robert Bradley, Jr. in Lauderdale County for the offenses of driving under the influence , driving on a suspended license, and violation of the implied consent law. On May 8, 2001, an appearance bond in the amount of $10,000 was posted on behalf of Bradley by A-Bail Bond Company. Bradley appeared at his initial general sessions court appearance date on May 25, 2001; however, he did not appear at his next scheduled court date of July 20, 2001. As a result, Bradley's bond of $10,000 was "called," a conditional judgment was entered against A-Bail Bond Company in the amount of $10,000, and a scire facias issued. No further action was taken with regard to Bradley's bond in the general sessions court. However, on October 1, 2001, Bradley was indicted by a Lauderdale County grand jury for the same offenses charged in the general sessions court, in addition to a new charge of felony failure to appear. The capias, which issued as a result of the indicted charges, remained unserved. On January 30, 2002, the Lauderdale Circuit Court entered an order of final forfeiture on the May 8, 2001 bond in the amount of $10,000.
The Appellant paid the bond, under threat of execution, on March 26, 2002. In May 2003, the Appellant located Bradley in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where he had been incarcerated since December 2002. Bradley was ultimately transported to Lauderdale County and on September 26, 2003, he pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court to the indicted charges. On September 29, 2003, the Appellant filed a petition seeking reimbursement of the $10,000 bail bond paid into the court. The Appellant's petition was denied, with this appeal following.
Analysis
On appeal, the Appellant alleges that the Lauderdale County Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to order a final forfeiture of the bail bond which secured Bradley's appearance in the general sessions court. He asserts that only the general sessions court had authority to enter the final judgment. Thus, he contends that the circuit court's order requiring payment of the $10,000 judgment is void, and because Bradley has since pled guilty to the charges, the Appellant is now statutorily released from his obligations as surety. The State argues that the bond secured "the presence of [Bradley] for final termination of the case" and that because "the instant case was moved from General Sessions to Circuit Court, the case had not reached final judgment." As such, the State contends that under these circumstances, "the bond follows [Bradley]."
First, we observe that a bail bond is a contract between the State on the one side and the criminal defendant and his surety on the other, whereby the surety assumes custody of the defendant and guarantees the State either the appearance of the defendant in court or the payment of the full amount of the bail set by the court. In re: Sanford & Son's Bail Bonds, Inc., 96 S.W. 3d 199, 202 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). A court may not unilaterally alter the terms of a bail bond contract unless statutorily authorized. In this case, it is undisputed that the Appellant contractually guaranteed Bradley's appearance throughout the various stages of the criminal proceedings, conditioned on the Appellant's continuing compliance with the conditions of the bail bond. However, when the Appellant failed to appear in general sessions court, as the bond required him to do, he was no longer in compliance with the terms and conditions of the bail
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|