Posted 2/25/2016

In State v. Mitchell, 2016 WL 640522 (S.C.App. February 17, 2016) the surety appealed the estreatment of an appearance recognizance bond.  The surety argued that the bond was satisfied when the defendant was produced for his bond revocation hearing.  In a decision short on facts and analysis, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the estreatment, and the estreatment amount was not arbitrary and capricious.  In particular, case law affirming the estreatment of a bond for violating the good behavior condition supported the trial court’s decision. 

In Windsor v. State, 2016 WL 675404 (Tex. App. February 18, 2016), the court dismissed an appeal of the forfeiture of the defendant’s personal recognizance bond for lack of jurisdiction.  The court noted that the judgment by the trial court was a judgment nisi, and a judgment nisi is not a final appealable judgment. 

In State v. Skinner, Case No. CAAP-15-0000353 (Haw. Ct. App. February 19, 2016), the trial court issued a “Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond.”  The bond company filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture after the 30 day period required by statute (HRS § 804-51).  The trial court denied the motion as untimely.  Rather than filing an appeal, the bond company filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the trial court denied.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial.  It held that the only recourse under the statute was an appeal.  Instead, the bond company filed Motion to Reconsider that was not allowed under HRS § 804-51.