International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 30222
| Decision Date | 25 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 30222,30222 |
| Citation | 114 Nev. 1061,967 P.2d 804 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Mario Marquez ("Marquez") was arrested and placed in the custody of the Clark County Detention Center. On December 6, 1995, a criminal complaint was filed in the Las Vegas Justice Court charging him with separate counts of conspiracy to traffic and trafficking in a controlled substance.
On December 7, 1995, Marquez was present and "in custody" for his initial justice court arraignment. A preliminary hearing was set for December 22, 1995. On December 21, 1995, International Fidelity Insurance ("IFIC") issued bail bonds totaling $13,000.00 to secure Marquez's appearance for subsequent court proceedings. The bail bonds were issued through Pat's Bail Bonds, IFIC's duly appointed agent in the state of Nevada. Thus, Marquez was released from custody.
Marquez appeared as scheduled on December 22, 1995, at which time he waived his preliminary hearing. His return date for arraignment in district court was set for January 2, 1996.
After Marquez failed to appear at his initial arraignment in district court, Marquez's counsel requested a continuance to produce Marquez. The district court ordered the matter reset for January 16, 1996.
When Marquez again failed to appear on January 16, 1996, the district court issued a no-bail bench warrant. On January 25, 1996, the district court filed and mailed a notice of "intent to forfeit" to IFIC and Pat's Bail Bonds. This notice contained a forfeiture date of July 24, 1996, and set a show cause hearing date for August 2, 1996. IFIC received this notice on January 29, 1996.
On March 5, 1997, the district court issued its final order denying a motion by IFIC for exoneration of the bonds claiming failure of the district court to comply with NRS 178.508. IFIC filed this timely appeal.
Having reviewed the briefs and having had the benefit of oral argument of counsel, we dismiss IFIC's appeal.
Standard of review
The district court has broad discretion in addressing its internal matters. Discretionary matters are " 'uncontrolled by fixed rules of law.' " Goodman v. Goodman, 68 Nev. 484, 487, 236 P.2d, 305, 307 (1951) (quoting Bouvier's Law Dictionary 884 (3d rev.1914)). This autonomy vests the district court with implied authority to excuse absences by persons accused. Also, the court may implicitly excuse an absence. Only where there is a manifest abuse of discretion may a decision of the trial court be reviewed and corrected by this court. Id.
1. IFIC contends that NRS 178.508 requires that the district court expressly record the excuse of a bailee's non-appearance. The statute provides in pertinent part:
If the [bailee] fails to appear when his presence in court is lawfully required and not excused, the court shall direct the fact of such failure to appear to be entered upon its minutes. If the undertaking exceeds $50 or money deposited instead of bail bond exceeds $500, the court shall direct that the sureties and the local agent of each surety, or the depositor if he is not the [bailee], be given notice that the [bailee] has failed to appear, by certified mail within 15 days after the failure to appear, and shall execute an affidavit of such mailing to be kept as an official public record of the court. The undertaking or money instead of bail bond is forfeited upon the expiration of 180 days after the notice is mailed, except as otherwise provided in NRS 178.509.
Because the court minutes do not contain express language excusing Marquez's absence, IFIC argues that Marquez's first non-appearance on January 2, 1996, was unexcused. As a result, IFIC contends that the district court did not comply with NRS 178.508...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bai v. State
...the district court was within its discretion to change the record to reflect the true translation. See Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 114 Nev. 1061, 1062, 967 P.2d 804, 805 (1998) ("The district court has broad discretion in addressing its internal matters."); Riley v. State, 83 Nev. 282, 28......
-
International Fid. Ins. v. State of Nevada
...Bail Bonds, 115 Nev. 436, 991 P.2d 469 (1999) (appeal from order granting motion to exonerate bail bond); Int'l Fidelity Ins. v. State of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1061, 967 P.2d 804 (1998) (appeal from order denying motion to exonerate bail bond); Surety Midland Ins. v. State of Nevada, 97 Nev. 108......
-
Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...the district court has manifestly abused its discretion in these matters so that writ relief is warranted. Int'l Fidelity Ins. v. State of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1061, 967 P.2d 804 (1998) (stating that the district court has broad discretion in addressing internal matters); Hetter v. District Cou......
-
40/40 Club Las Vegas, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...district court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously so that writ relief is warranted. Int'l Fidelity Ins. v. State of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1061, 967 P.2d 804 (1998) (stating that the district court has broad discretion in addressing internal matters); Hetter v. District Cour......