Beth's Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 171
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-15-700
Opinion Delivered March 16, 2016
BETH’S BAIL BONDS, INC.
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. SEVENTH DIVISION
[NOS. CR-12-3088; CR-13-1044; CV-
STATE OF ARKANSAS 15-1950]
APPELLEE
HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
Beth’s Bail Bonds, Inc. (BBB), appeals from the bond-forfeiture judgment entered
against it on May 4, 2015. On appeal, BBB contends that the judgment should be reversed
due to failure to comply with the bond-forfeiture statute. We affirm.
BBB wrote a bail bond in favor of Billy Mac Harris on April 10, 2013. Harris failed
to appear for court on July 22, 2013. On that same date, the trial court and circuit clerk
issued an order to show cause and a summons ordering BBB to appear on October 14, 2013,
to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited due to Harris’s failure to appear. The
parties agree that, for unexplained reasons, the case was not called up on October 14, 2013,
and the show-cause hearing was never held.
On August 19, 2014, notice was mailed to Harris ordering him to appear for a
“report/status” hearing in his case on September 4, 2014. The notice was returned, marked
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 171
“return to sender,” “moved left no address,” and “unable to forward.” On September 4,
2014, Harris failed to appear. The trial court entered an order to show cause, and the circuit
clerk issued a summons for BBB to appear on December 8, 2014.
BBB filed a motion to dismiss the bond forfeiture, and the show-cause hearing was
reset for May 4, 2015. David Viele, an agent for BBB, testified that he took Harris into
custody on May 18, 2014, and tried to surrender him to the jail, but he was told there was
no warrant for Harris. Viele did not know if Harris had received notice of his court date.
Viele said that BBB’s license had been revoked since October 2014, so he had been unable
to look for Harris since then. David Cannon, Harris’s former attorney, said that he received
notice of Harris’s September 4, 2014 court date, and his office would have sent notice to
Harris at his address on file. The trial court entered judgment forfeiting BBB’s bond of
$10,000. BBB timely appealed.
BBB argues that the judgment should be reversed because Harris was not lawfully
required to appear on September 4, 2014, since the notice sent to Harris was returned
undelivered. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-84-207(a) (Supp. 2015) provides that if
a bail bond is granted by a judicial officer, it shall be conditioned on the defendant’s
appearing for trial, surrendering in execution of the judgment, or appearing at any other time
when his or her presence in circuit court may be lawfully required under Rule 9.5 or Rule
9.6 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any other rule.
It is well settled that an appellant must raise and make an argument at trial in order to
preserve it for appeal. First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 373 Ark. 463, 284 S.W.3d 525
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 171
(2008). BBB’s argument is not preserved because it was not raised below at the show-cause
hearing or in BBB’s motion to dismiss. Furthermore, BBB has offered no convincing
argument or citation to authority for its claim that the notice sent to Harris did not comply
with the statute. Our courts do not consider an argument, even a constitutional one, when
the appellant presents no citation to authority or convincing argument in its support, and it
is not apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. Hollis v. State, 346
Ark. 175, 55 S.W.3d 756 (2001).
To the extent BBB argues that the judgment should be reversed because the State
failed to pursue the original forfeiture proceeding, this argument has no merit. In compliance
with Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-84-207(b), a summons was issued to BBB
immediately after Harris failed to appear on both occasions—July 22, 2013, and September
4, 2014. The show-cause hearing was held based on the second failure to appear, and the
bond was forfeited as a result. BBB presents no citation to authority or convincing argument
in support of its claim that the proper procedures were not followed.
Affirmed.
GLOVER and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.
Charles D. Hancock, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3