State v. Boatwright
| Decision Date | 04 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23741,A-1,23741 |
| Citation | 423 S.E.2d 139,310 S.C. 281 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert Paul BOATWRIGHT, Defendant. In re Mike T. FALLAW, d/b/aBonding Company, Appellant. . Heard |
Robert T. Williams, Sr., of Williams & Brink, Lexington, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Deputy Atty. Gen. William K. Moore, Columbia, and Sol. Barbara R. Morgan, Aiken, for respondent.
This is an estreatment case. Appellant (Fallaw) appeals the order of the circuit court finding that defendant (Boatwright) violated the terms of his bond and ordering that one-half of the bond be estreated to the State. We affirm.
In December 1990, Boatwright was arrested in Aiken County for forgery and parole violation. He was released on an appearance bond with Fallaw signing as surety for $2500. In January 1991, an arrest warrant for a parole violation was issued for Boatwright in Georgia. Boatwright subsequently was arrested in Aiken for criminal domestic violence (CDV). He pled guilty to CDV, waived extradition, and was released to Georgia authorities on March 13.
On March 18, Boatwright failed to appear when his forgery case was called in General Sessions Court in Aiken. A rule to show cause was issued and an affidavit of non-service on Boatwright states that he was incarcerated in Georgia on April 5. Fallaw was served with the rule to show cause and appeared at the estreatment hearing.
Based on his findings that Fallaw failed to show cause why he should not be held liable on the bond, the circuit court judge estreated one-half of the bond amount. The judge also ordered restitution be paid to the forgery victim from the State's portion, and dismissed the forgery charge.
Did the circuit court judge err in ordering partial estreatment?
South Carolina Code Ann. § 17-15-20 (1985) states that an appearance bond carries certain conditions, including the defendant's appearance in court and his good behavior. South Carolina Code Ann. § 17-15-90 (1985) provides that a person who has been released on bond who willfully fails to appear in court shall, in addition to other penalties, forfeit his bond. If bond is forfeited because of ignorance or unavoidable impediment rather than willful default, the trial court may, on affidavit showing cause or excuse, remit the forfeiture in full or in part. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-15-180 (1985).
Fallaw contends that the State should be estopped from estreating any part of the bond because the release of Boatwright to Georgia prevented Boatwright from appearing in court. Fallaw argues the circuit court judge erred in estreating a portion of the bond because Boatwright's failure to appear was not willful.
This Court has not previously addressed a situation in which a defendant who has been released on bond is subsequently extradited to another state. Because bond is contractual in nature, estoppel may operate against the State or the surety in a bond arrangement. State v. Simring, 230 S.C. 49, 94 S.E.2d 9 (1956). When extradition is accomplished, the surety is no longer able to perform his obligation under the contract to deliver the defendant to court. Accordingly, the surety should be released from liability when estreatment is ordered for non-appearance after defendant has been extradited.
Nevertheless, it is the contract that provides the basis for the State's right to bond estreatment. State v. McIntyre, --- S.C. ----, 415 S.E.2d 399 (1992). Here, the record reflects that the circuit judge found, and Fallaw conceded, that Boatwright breached the condition of good behavior. This condition was clearly set forth in the standard bond form that Fallaw signed. Our disposition of this case is therefore different than it would be if Boatwright's non-appearance were the basis for the estreatment.
Estreatment for a violation of the good behavior condition is proper. State v Workman, 274 S.C. 341, 263 S.E.2d 865 (1980) (appeal bond). Boatwright pled guilty to criminal domestic violence; it is beyond dispute that he breached the condition of good behavior. Id. As a professional bondsman, Fallaw is certainly aware that an appearance bond carries conditions beyond the defendant's presence in court.
Relief from bond forfeiture is in the discretion of the trial court. Id.; State v. Holloway, 262 S.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 822 (1974). Although Boatwright's failure to appear was not found to be willful, the judge held and Fallaw agreed that Boatwright otherwise breached the conditions of his bond. The order clearly reflects that the effect of the State's extradition of Boatwright was that the judge decreased the forfeiture by half. We cannot say that the judge abused his discretion by ordering a partial estreatment, and accordingly, the order of the circuit court is affirmed.
We do not reach the propriety of the judge's sua sponte dismissal of the charges against Boatwright, or his order of restitution, as those questions are not properly before the Court.
AFFIRMED.
I concur, fully, in the majority opinion with additional comment.
The dissent eschews that portion of the record which sustains the trial judge's estreatment of the bond.
It is correct that the Court's Estreatment Order does not specifically cite Boatwright's violation of the good behavior condition of his bond.
However, it is equally correct, in the colloquy between the Court and Fallaw, Boatwright's bondsman, that the trial judge was fully cognizant of the violation and its impact upon the Court's authority to estreat the bond, to wit:
Ass't. Solicitor: ... the individual was initially on bond with Mr. Fallaw on a forgery charge, and before that charge was disposed of he was again arrested while he was out on bond for criminal domestic violence charge. He was placed back in jail ...
The Court: That would be a violation of his bond though.
Mr. Fallaw: Yes, sir.
* * * * * *
The fact is you were on his bond and the condition of his bond is that he'll be on good behavior and not violate the laws of this state, and he wasn't on good behavior.
* * * * * *
The Court finds that Robert Paul Boatwright was not in court when required to be and violated the condition of his bond by violating the law while Mr. Fallaw was on his bond. So the Court is going to estreat $1,250 which is one half, and that's a full and final estreatment. I'll let you off the hood [sic] for the other half of it. (Emphasis supplied).
From the foregoing, it is clear that the judge considered both the failure to appear and the conviction for criminal domestic violence in determining to estreat the bond by only one-half.
The overriding purpose of requiring the defendant to produce a bond before releasing the defendant from custody is to insure the defendant's appearance in court. See State v. Workman, 274 S.C. 341, 263 S.E.2d 865 (1980); Town of Mayesville v. McCutcheon, 205 S.C. 241, 31 S.E.2d 390 (1944); Saunders v. Hughes, 2 Bailey 504 (1831); see also Annotation, Effect on Surety's Liability Under Bail Bond of Principals's Incarceration in Other Jurisdiction, 33 A.L.R.4th 663 (1984); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bail and Recognizance § 4 (1980); 8 C.J.S. Bail § 5 (1988). Bail is not a revenue measure nor is it to be forfeited to compensate victims. See Paris v. United States, 137 F.2d 300 (4th Cir.1943). A bail bond is a contract; its terms and conditions are controlled by statute and the agreement of the parties. State v. McIntyre, --- S.C. ----, 415 S.E.2d 399 (1992); State v. White, 284 S.C. 69, 325 S.E.2d 64 (1985); State v. Bailey, 248 S.C. 438, 151 S.E.2d 87 (1966); State v. Simring, 230 S.C. 49, 94 S.E.2d 9 (1956). South Carolina has long encouraged "bondsmen to enter into bail contracts, in order to facilitate the release of defendants whose guilt has yet to be determined and to relieve the state of the cost of providing for the defendants while in jail." Annotation, Effect on Surety's Liability Under Bail Bond of Principals's Incarceration in Other Jurisdiction, 33 A.L.R.4th 663, 667 (1984); see also Ham v. McLeod, 255 S.C. 185, 178 S.E.2d 141 (1970); Nichols v. Patterson, 202 S.C. 352, 25 S.E.2d 155 (1943); Barton v. Keith, 2 Hill 537 (1835); State v. Hill, 3 Brev. 89 (1812).
While the defendant is released on bail, he is in the constructive custody of the bondsman. The bondsman always has the authority to physically remand the defendant to the custody of the jurisdiction holding the bond and relieve himself from the obligation under the bond. State v. Brakefield, 302 S.C. 317, 396 S.E.2d 103 (1990); Wilson v. McLeod, 274 S.C. 525, 265 S.E.2d 677 (1980); State v. Holloway, 262 S.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 822 (1974); Breeze v. Elmore, 4 Rich. 436 (1951). Conversely, when the defendant does not appear at the appointed time and place, there is a strong presumption that the terms of the bond have been breached. State v. Holloway, 262 S.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 822 (1974). The bond may also be estreated if the defendant breaches terms or conditions of the bond other than appearance. See e.g. State v. Workman, 274 S.C. 341, 263 S.E.2d 865 (1980).
Under South Carolina law, when the terms of the bond are breached, the bond is estreated by a conditional order. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-15-170 (1976); Pride v. Anders, 266 S.C. 338, 223 S.E.2d 184 (1976); State v. Holloway, 262 S.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 822 (1974). The bondsman is then entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard to show cause as to why the estreatment order should not become final. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-15-170 (1976). Because the bond has already been estreated by the conditional order, the second hearing is to determine the amount, if any, to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mcclinton
...is "one who, with the defendant, is liable for the amount of the bail bond upon forfeiture of bail"); State v. Boatwright, 310 S.C. 281, 283-84, 423 S.E.2d 139, 140-41 (1992) ("it is the contract that provides the basis for the State's right to bond estreatment"; in upholding partial estrea......
-
State v. Lara
...warrant, the bond shall be forfeited."3 (Emphasis supplied). As noted by Justice Toal in her dissenting opinion in State v. Boatwright, 310 S.C. 281, 423 S.E.2d 139 (1992): Under South Carolina law, when the terms of the bond are breached, the bond is estreated by a conditional order. S.C.C......
-
Ex Parte Safety Nat'l, Sur. for S.C. Bonding Co. Sur.
...not effectuated by an act of the State, but rather the defendant's own actions that could have been prevented by the surety. Id. at 373. In Boatwright, the defendant was arrested and with forgery. He was subsequently released on an appearance bond. Prior to the trial of his case, the defend......
-
State v. Mitchell
..."is certainly aware that an appearance bond carries conditions beyond the defendant's appearance in court." State v. Boatwright, 310 S.C. 281, 283, 423 S.E.2d 139, 141 (1992). "The bond may also be estreated if the defendant breaches terms or conditions of the bond other than appearance." I......