Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bobby Cox Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State
Citations: 71 Ark. App. 119; 36 S.W.3d 752; 2000 Ark. App. LEXIS 604Docket: CA CR 00-54
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; September 27, 2000; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Bobby Cox Bail Bonds, Inc. appeals the forfeiture of a $50,000 bond after the defendant, Patrick A. Capps, failed to return from a lunch break during his trial on drug charges. The appeal argues that the trial court lacked authority to forfeit the bond because Capps was in its custody when he absconded and that the company was not obligated to continue as surety since it had not agreed to remain after Capps was produced at trial. The facts indicate that Bobby Cox Bail Bonds issued a bail bond on July 19, 1998, for Capps, who appeared for his trial on May 12, 1999, but did not return after lunch. A bond-forfeiture hearing was held on November 9, 1999, where the bonding company contended that their liability was extinguished because no arrangements were made for Capps to remain on bond. However, it was revealed during cross-examination that the bond explicitly stated the company would guarantee Capps’s appearances until he was lawfully discharged or surrendered after final judgment. The court ordered forfeiture on November 22, 1999. Bobby Cox Bail Bonds cited Ark. Code Ann. 16-84-111(b) and the case Liberty Bonding v. State to support its argument for error in the forfeiture order, claiming liability ended when Capps showed up for trial. The court found this argument unmeritorious, noting that the bond's language indicated ongoing obligation until specific conditions were met, which had not occurred. Additionally, the company argued a conflict between Ark. Code Ann. 16-84-111(b) and Rule 9.2(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting the statute should prevail. The court disagreed, finding no conflict and noting that the bond's language aligned with Rule 9.2(e), reinforcing the company's contractual obligations. The court affirmed the forfeiture, with Justices Bird and Koonce concurring.