Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re: Allyn Hood d/b/a/ A-Hood Bonding Company
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2010-02126-CCA-R3-CO
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 18, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Allyn Hood, owner of A-Hood Bonding Company, appealed the trial court's denial of his son Daniel Hood's application to become a bail bond agent in the Second Judicial District. Following a de novo review, the appellate court determined that Daniel Hood fulfilled all statutory requirements for a bail bond agent. The trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to authorize Daniel Hood's application. The background includes the following key points: 1. On June 16, 2010, Allyn Hood filed a motion to add Daniel as a bail bond agent, which was met with opposition from the State on June 18, 2010. 2. At the July 30, 2010 hearing, Allyn Hood testified about Daniel's academic achievements, including being an academic all-SEC student and a high school honor roll student, as well as receiving the statewide 'Mr. Football' award. 3. Allyn Hood acknowledged Daniel's prior adjudication as a delinquent for conduct at age thirteen but stated that Daniel completed all required programs and was qualified to be an agent. 4. Daniel Hood, aged twenty at the time of the hearing, provided an affidavit affirming he was not disqualified from being a bail bondsman under Tennessee law. 5. Evidence included Daniel being recognized as a bonding agent in the First and Third Judicial Districts and a letter from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation showing no criminal history. 6. The State opposed the application, citing that the delinquent act would constitute serious felonies if committed as an adult. 7. The trial court ultimately denied the application based on the nature of Daniel's past offense and the brief time since the Court of Appeals' decision. The appellate court's ruling effectively allows Daniel Hood to be recognized as a bail bond agent, reversing the trial court's findings. The trial court acknowledged Mr. Hood's potential as a bonding agent in the First and Third Judicial Districts but denied his application partly due to the delinquent act occurring in the current judicial district and the publicity surrounding the proceedings. Both the appellant and the State argue over the proper standard of review for the trial court's denial. The appellate review is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-125(d), which requires a de novo review rather than an abuse of discretion standard. Upon review, it is determined that Mr. Hood meets all qualifications to be a bail bond agent. Key points include the distinction between juvenile proceedings and criminal prosecutions, as juvenile cases focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Tennessee law generally prohibits the use of juvenile adjudications in other courts, underscoring the intent to remove the stigma of criminality from juveniles. The appellate court concludes that barring Mr. Hood from becoming a bail bond agent based on his juvenile adjudication would contradict legislative intent and statutory language. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to approve Mr. Hood's application as a bail bond agent in the Second Judicial District.