State v. Hammond, 53098
Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 53098,53098,1 |
Citation | 426 S.W.2d 84 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles Earl HAMMOND, Defendant, and Maryland National Insurance Company, Surety, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert G. Duncan, Pierce, Duncan, Beitling & Shute, Kansas City, for appellant.
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., J. Steve Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a surety company's motion for a remittitur following entry of a judgment of forfeiture of defendant's appearance bond in a burglary and larceny prosecution.
Defendant Charles Earl Hammond posted the bond in magistrate court. Bound over to circuit court, defendant failed to make an appearance on the date set by the court, whereupon the court ordered forfeiture of the bond and that a scire facias issue to defendant and the surety. The scire facias issued and was served on the attorney-infact for the surety company. A non est return was made as to defendant Hammond.
The surety filed a motion for remittitur of all or part of the bond 'for the reason that said surety was unable to return said defendant to the jurisdiction of this Court, because he is incarcerated in another state.' The motion was overruled; judgment was entered against the surety for $4,000 and the surety appealed.
Appellant's first point is that the court erred in entering judgment of forfeiture because no motion for judgment was filed and the procedure established by Criminal Rule 32.12 1 was not followed.
Criminal Rule 32.12 provides as follows:
The procedure followed did not constitute literal compliance with Criminal Rule 32.12. The irregularity, however, was technical and nonprejudicial. It is not questioned that the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the surety. It is indisputable that the surety had due notice and an opportunity to be heard and to show cause why 'justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture.' The surety did in fact make a showing upon the basis of which it prayed for remittitur. It showed that at the time of the setting of the case defendant was incarcerated in Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester; that the surety had diligently attempted to obtain his return to this jurisdiction for trial--had done everything possible to produce him, including sending two detainer warrants to the Oklahoma authorities. The surety makes no showing or contention that it has been prejudiced by the procedure employed, contending simply that scire facias 'was not the appropriate procedure for the enforcement of the bond forfeiture herein.'
The irregularity of the proceedings has resulted in no actual prejudice to the appellant. If Criminal Rule 32.12 had been followed the court, after declaring the forfeiture, could have directed that the forfeiture be set aside if justice did not require enforcement of the forfeiture. If the forfeiture was not set aside the court, acting under the rule, could have entered judgment of default and issued execution, on motion. While no motion for judgment was filed, the office of the motion was fulfilled in the procedure followed and appellant was not prejudiced by its omission. Civil Rule 83.13(b) and § 512.160(2), RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., provide that 'No appellate court shall reverse any judgment, unless it believes that error was committed by the trial court against the appellant, materially affecting the merits of the action.' In state ex rel. Kansas City University of Physicians and Surgeons v. North, 316 Mo. 1050, 294 S.W. 1012, l.c. 1014(4), the Court en Banc said: The office and purpose of the scire facias are to notify the sureties of the default of the principal 'and afford them an opportunity to show cause why execution should not be awarded against them.' State v. Austin, 141 Mo. 481, 43 S.W. 165, 167. No other or greater opportunity to be relieved from the burden of the recognizance would have been afforded the surety if the procedure under the rule had been followed to the letter. While Criminal Rule 32.12 should be followed the rule does not prohibit the instant procedure, indeed, does not prohibit an independent suit to enforce liability on a bond filed in a criminal case. State v. Haverstick, Mo.Sup., 326 S.W.2d 92, 95(2), 75 A.L.R.2d 1422. The proceeding adopted in this case is not to be defeated and the judgment of forfeiture is not to be set aside for the irregularity noted. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jones
...State v. Wynne, 356 Mo. 1095, 204 S.W.2d 927; State v. Savage, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 887; State v. Austin, 141 Mo. 481, 43 S.W. 165; State v. Hammond, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 84; State v. Hinojosa, 364 Mo. 1039, 271 S.W.2d 522; State v. Adank, Mo., 256 S.W. 768; State v. Horn, 70 Mo. 466; State v. Havers......
-
State v. Foster
...v. Austin, 141 Mo. 481, 43 S.W. 165, 167, and the function of the motion for judgment under Criminal Rule 32.12 is the same. State v. Hammond, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 84, 86. 'The burden is on the surety to prove justification or excuse for the failure of the principal to appear in compliance with ......
-
State v. Armstrong
...that prejudice to the appellant resulted from the irregularity. If there is no actual harm, there can be no relief. State v. Hammond, 426 S.W.2d 84, 861, 2 (Mo.1968). The surety had approximately one month's notice of the hearing; the surety is not contending that there was insufficient opp......
-
State v. Vertner, 16063
...procedure, indeed, does not prohibit an independent suit to enforce liability on a bond filed in a criminal case." State v. Hammond, 426 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.1968) (emphasis The applicability of Rule 32.12 to the magistrate court has been considered. In State v. Anderson, supra, at 163, it was......