In Re BOND FORFEITURE IN COCHISE COUNTY
307 P.3d 980
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- In December 2011, Kendrick was arrested on eight felonies and released on a $75,000 appearance bond.
- Azteca posted the bond in January 2012 after Kendrick failed to appear at pre-trial conferences, prompting a bond-forfeit proceeding.
- The trial court issued a warrant and an order to show cause regarding forfeiture; Azteca moved to exonerate, arguing the bond was void under article II, § 22.
- The court denied exoneration, stating the state may pursue no-bail relief and Kendrick’s release was not without authority, and ordered the $75,000 forfeited.
- Azteca appealed, challenging the court’s authority under the Arizona Constitution and whether the state had a duty to notify the court of Kendrick’s release status.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the bond valid and that the court did not err in forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court exceed authority under article II, § 22 by setting bail without determining Kendrick’s release status? | Azteca contends the court should have withheld bail until release status was proven. | State argues the court could set bail and forfeit if an exception to bail applied; no need to delay for status. | Bond valid; no error in forfeiture. |
| Was there a duty to inform the court of Kendrick’s release status before setting bail or forfeiture? | Azteca asserts the state must notify the court if it declines to prove proof evident and presumption great. | State is not compelled to provide such information; discretion lies with prosecutor. | No mandatory duty; bond forfeiture affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lee, 226 Ariz. 234 (Ariz. 2011) (statutory interpretation of constitutional language; plain language governs)
- Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261 (Ariz. App. 2004) (presumption in favor of bail; burden on state to prove exception)
- State v. Garrett, 16 Ariz. App. 427 (Ariz. App. 1972) (court cannot release when proof of exception exists; mandatory denial of bail)
- State v. Swinburne, 121 Ariz. 404 (Ariz. 1979) (bond void ab initio where court releases defendant without authority)
- Bond Forfeiture in Pima Cnty., 208 Ariz. 368 (Ariz. App. 2004) (surety not required to discover defendant status; bond validity depends on court authority)
- Segura v. Cunanan, 219 Ariz. 228 (Ariz. App. 2008) (due process requires full hearing when due to bail restrictions)
- Murphy, 113 Ariz. 416 (Ariz. 1976) (prosecutor’s discretion generally not reviewable by court)
- Heath v. Kiger, 217 Ariz. 492 (Ariz. 2008) (plain-language approach to constitutional intent)