State v. LeQuire
| Decision Date | 15 February 1984 |
| Citation | 672 S.W.2d 221 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Jerry Allen LeQUIRE, Appellant. In re Petition of H.A. (Bam) WEBSTER. 672 S.W.2d 221 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wayne E. Uhl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee.
Jerry C. Colley, Columbia, for appellant.
H.A. (Bam) Webster, d/b/a Columbia Bonding Co., executed a $150,000.00 bond for Jerry Allen LeQuire pending LeQuire's appeal to this Court of a criminal conviction. When LeQuire failed to appear as ordered, a conditional forfeiture was entered against Webster on April 27, 1982. Final forfeiture was entered by this Court on January 25, 1983.
Webster paid $150,000.00 plus court costs to the clerk of this Court on June 17, 1983. Approximately two months later, on August 19, 1983, LeQuire was apprehended in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 1 Webster, claiming he has, at all times, been diligent in his efforts to locate LeQuire and secure his presence before the Court, now petitions under T.C.A. Sec. 40-11-204 for relief by remission of all or part of the forfeited amount.
T.C.A. Sec. 40-11-204 provides:
The judges of the circuit, criminal, and Supreme Court may receive, hear, and determine the petition of any person who may conceive that he merits relief on any recognizances forfeited, and so lessen or absolutely remit the same, and do all and everything therein as they shall deem just and right, and consistent with the welfare of the state, as well as the person praying such relief. This power shall extend to the relief of those against whom final judgment has been entered, as well as to the relief of those against whom proceedings are in progress. Cities, which have adopted home rule, may elect to authorize their city court judges to lessen or remit forfeitures in accordance with the provisions of this section if those judges have jurisdiction to hear state misdemeanor cases.
By order of December 5, 1983, the Supreme Court transferred the case to this Court for disposition. The duty falls, therefore, upon us to examine the equities of the situation and the merits of Mr. Webster's petition.
In the case of State v. Frankgos, 114 Tenn. 76, 85 S.W. 79 (1905), our Supreme Court addressed this same issue in a similar context. In Frankgos, the sureties had paid the amount of the bond into the state treasury but sought a return of the money because they had searched for the principal, had sent detectives to look for the individual, and had offered a reward for the defendant's recapture. The Court, holding that the sureties' good faith was not a consideration in its decision, denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds, Inc.
...or the amounts of their expense are not excuses." See In re: Paul's Bonding Co., 62 S.W.3d at 194; see also State v. Le Quire, 672 S.W.2d 221, 222-223 (Tenn. Crim.App.1984). This restrictive interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-204 is grounded in part in public policy considerations, F......
-
In re: Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds Inc.
...or the amounts of their expense are not excuses." See In re: Paul's Bonding Co., 62 S.W.3d at 194; see also State v. Le Quire, 672 S.W.2d 221, 222-223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). This restrictive interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. 40-11-204 is grounded in part in public policy considerations, F......
-
State v. Scott (In re Danny Blankenship Bonding Co.)
...such as death or impossibility to produce the defendant, and that good faith was not relevant); State v. LeQuire (In re Webster), 672 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (stating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying exoneration to surety on the basis that the sur......
-
In re: Speedy Release Bail Bonds, W2000-02260-CCA-R3-CD
...of their expense are not excuses. State v. Shredeh, 909 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); see also State v. Le Quire, 672 S.W.2d 221, 222-223 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). Our supreme court in Frankgos, 85 S.W. at 81, explained that "[t]o relieve sureties upon [lesser] grounds . . . would......