State v. Marrufo-Gonzalez
| Citation | 806 N.W.2d 475 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–2125.,10–2125. |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Librado MARRUFO–GONZALEZ, Defendant,andAlways Affordable Bail Bonds, Inc., and Universal Fire and Casualty Company, Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brent Rosenberg of Rosenberg & Morse, Des Moines, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Ernie Rose, Student Legal Intern, for appellee.
Heard by DANILSON, P.J., and TABOR and MULLINS, JJ.
Sureties, Always Affordable Bail Bonds and Universal Fire and Casualty Company (collectively Always Affordable), appeal from the district court's forfeiture and judgment upon defendant Librado Marrufo–Gonzalez's $5000 surety bond. Always Affordable contends the district court erred in entering a second forfeiture on the bond which had been previously forfeited, and upon which judgment had been entered and set aside after the defendant had posted new bond and was released from custody. Always Affordable also argues the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment on the bond. Upon our review, we conclude the district court had subject matter jurisdiction but upon the defendant's surrender to the Polk County Sheriff, the Always Affordable surety bond no longer served as a guarantee of his appearance. New bail was fixed, and no court order required the $5000 surety bond to remain a condition, or part of a combination of conditions, of the defendant's release. Moreover, Always Affordable did not consent to the expansion of its obligation or contract with the State to assure that the defendant made subsequent appearances. The fact the defendant was later released did not permit the court to reinstate the obligations of the surety without its consent and did not return the parties to the status quo. Upon the court's order filed August 30, 2006, which set aside judgment entered on the forfeited bond, and the return of the defendant's custody to the sheriff, Always Affordable was discharged from any further duties. After August 30, 2006, all further court orders were of no legal consequence to Always Affordable. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Marrufo–Gonzalez was charged with two criminal offenses on January 28, 2006. As the case proceeded, it became necessary to fix bail on four separate occasions due to Marrufo–Gonzalez's failure to appear. He was able to post three of the bail bonds.1
The first of the posted bonds was exonerated; the second (the bond at issue in this case that was posted by Always Affordable) had judgment entered against it which was later set aside; and the third was apparently forfeited with no further action taken. This case became muddy when the defendant repeatedly failed to appear, and various orders cited sureties (including Always Affordable) that were no longer involved in his case. This appeal arose after a second judgment was entered on Always Affordable's forfeited bond nearly four years after the original judgment on the forfeited bond had been set aside. The issue before us is straightforward; however, we reiterate the procedural history in order to explain our conclusion.
After Marrufo–Gonzalez's arrest, bail was set at $1950. Collis Bonding posted a surety bond, and the defendant was released from the Polk County Jail. On March 13, 2006, the defendant appeared for his initial appearance, and a pretrial conference was set for March 30.2
The defendant failed to appear at the March 30 pretrial conference, and the court ordered the forfeiture of his bond. In accordance with Iowa Code section 811.6 (2005), the court set a hearing for April 24 to allow the defendant and Collis Bonding to appear and show cause why judgment should not be entered for the amount of the bond. The court issued a bench warrant for the defendant, with bond set at $5000, cash or surety.
On April 21, the district court issued the following order in regard to the forfeited bond:
In the interest of justice, no judgment is entered on the forfeited bond [posted by Collis Bonding]. Forfeiture hearing is cancelled. Surety [Collis Bonding] is exonerated.3
The defendant appeared on May 28. The defendant's $5000 bond was posted by Always Affordable on May 30. The defendant appeared again on June 1, and the court set a pretrial conference for June 29.
The defendant failed to appear for the June 29 pretrial conference, and the court ordered forfeiture of his bond. The court entered an order setting a show cause hearing for July 31. The court issued a bench warrant for the defendant, with bail set in the sum of $10,000, cash or surety.
Always Affordable appeared at the July 31 show cause hearing. The defendant did not appear. The court continued the hearing to August 28. The defendant also failed to appear at the August 28 hearing. On that date, the court entered judgment against Always Affordable in the amount of the forfeited bond, $5000.
The defendant was surrendered to the custody of the Polk County Sheriff's Department two days later, on August 30. On that date, the court entered an order requiring a “$500 cash bond” be posted. The record also reflects on the same day the cash bond was posted by the defendant, he was released, and the court set a pretrial conference for September 14.
A separate order was also entered on August 30, described as an “Order Setting Aside Bond Forfeiture,” in which the court set aside the judgment entered against Always Affordable in light of the defendant's surrender to custody. The order stated, in pertinent part:
Judgment of Forfeiture was entered in this case on August 28, 2006. The Defendant was surrendered to the custody of the Sheriff within 60 days of that date pursuant to Section 811.6 Code of Iowa on the payment any, as costs incurred in connection with this matter, the judgment entered is ordered set aside.
(Emphasis added.)
Subsequently, the defendant failed to appear for the September 14 pretrial conference. On that date, the court entered an order setting a show cause hearing for October 30. The court forfeited the bond posted and issued a bench warrant for the defendant. Bond was set at $10,000, cash only. In the order, it recites that copies were sent to “Cash Bond”—defendant, and “Surety”—Collis Bonding and Always Affordable.
A show cause hearing took place on September 19 “as to Collis Bond only.” Following the hearing, the court entered an order stating,
On October 18, the defendant's case came before the court for trial. The defendant failed to appear. The court entered an order stating that the warrant issued for the defendant's arrest was to remain in full force and effect.
Nearly four years later, on September 3, 2010, the court filed an order stating that the defendant had failed to appear for a pretrial conference on November 21, 2008. The court noted that the warrant for the defendant's arrest was still in force and set a show cause hearing for September 27, 2010. The order noted that the defendant had posted a cash bond.
No one appeared at the September 27, 2010 hearing. In an order filed that same day, the court entered judgment on the forfeited $5000 bond of the defendant “and Sandra Herman.” 4 Three days later, on September 30, 2010, the court filed an amended order, entering judgment against the defendant and Always Affordable (instead of Sandra Herman), in the amount of $5000. However, the amended order incorrectly reflected that the hearing had occurred on September 30, 2010, rather than September 27, 2010.
On October 12, 2010, another order was entered citing the hearing date of September 27, 2010. However, this order entered judgment on the forfeited “cash” of the defendant, in the amount of $500.
On October 20, 2010, the court entered an order denying Always Affordable's oral motion to reconsider the judgment entered on September 30, 2010. As the court's order noted, “[Always Affordable] never withdrew its bond, and therefore the defendant was still bonded by the surety agency.”
On October 26, 2010, the court entered an order setting aside the September 27 and 30, 2010 orders, and continuing the hearing to November 29, 2010.5
A reported hearing was held on November 29, 2010. Always Affordable appeared and presented arguments in regard to the $5000 bond. Always Affordable argued that “the key order in this case is dated August 30, 2006,” where the court ordered that the judgment entered on the forfeited bond on August 28, 2006 be “set aside.” Always Affordable also argued that the court could not now enter judgment on a forfeited bond after judgment was set aside and the defendant was required to post new bond.
The court rejected Always Affordable's arguments. On December 6, 2010, the court entered judgment against Always Affordable, in the amount of the $5000 forfeited bond. Always Affordable now appeals.
The district court has discretion to enter judgment in a bond forfeiture hearing. State v. Cain, 608 N.W.2d 793, 794 (Iowa 2000). Our review of the court's ruling is for abuse of discretion. Id. This standard is breached when the court exercises its discretion on grounds that are clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. Subject matter jurisdiction issues are reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). The review for legal error concerning the court's authority to enter an order is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. P. 6.907; see also In re Marriage of Engler, 532 N.W.2d 747, 748 (Iowa 1995).
We first address Always Affordable's argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interest of M.W.
... ... The court of appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights to one of the children and reversed as to the other. The State appeals and requests that we affirm the juvenile court's termination of parental rights for both children. After our de novo review of the record, we ... ...
-
Farnsworth v. State
...and judgment therein are civil actions...." (quoting State v. Zylstra , 263 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Iowa 1978) )); State v. Marrufo-Gonzalez , 806 N.W.2d 475, 480 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) ("The proceedings for forfeiture of bail and judgment are civil actions....").Clearly, the April 4, 2013 order has......
-
In re K.C.
... ... Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, David Thompson, County Attorney, and Jo Nelson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.Troy Powell of the Powell Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, ... ...
-
In re R.V.
... ... His tentative discharge date is February 11, 2017.On June 20, 2012, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Robert's parental rights to R.V. and A.V. Robert did not contest the grounds for termination, but argued ... ...