State of Louisiana v. Teddy R. Magee, 282 So.3d 271

Background

Teddy R. Magee was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine; bond(s) were set at $40,000. Defendant failed to appear at an initial appearance (Oct. 20, 2010) and at a later scheduled trial (Apr. 3, 2012); bench warrants issued and bonds were forfeited.
Bankers Insurance Company (surety) filed motions to set aside each forfeiture, asserting Magee was incarcerated in other jurisdictions during the relevant surrender periods and seeking relief under former La. C.Cr.P. arts. 345(D) and 349.9.
For the 2010 forfeiture, Bankers filed a March 9, 2011 motion with a December 2010 “Letter of Verification of Incarceration”; the trial court granted relief April 25, 2011. The State was not properly served with the motion or mailed the resulting judgment.
For the 2012 forfeiture, Bankers filed an October 23, 2012 motion with an October 19, 2012 letter claiming Magee was jailed at Allen Correctional Center; the trial court granted relief Jan. 28, 2013. The State again was not properly served with the motion or mailed the judgment.
The State filed a motion for new trial/motion to vacate in 2017, asserting lack of notice and that Bankers failed to meet statutory requirements (adequate proof of incarceration and payment of transportation costs). Trial court denied relief; State appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Bankers' Argument	Held
Whether the April 25, 2011 judgment setting aside an Oct. 20, 2010 bond forfeiture was proper under La. C.Cr.P. art. 345(D)	Bankers failed to show Magee was incarcerated at the time the motion was filed and failed to pay the reasonable cost of returning Magee; thus art. 345(D) relief was unavailable	Relief appropriate because Magee was incarcerated in another parish and Bankers filed timely motion with a letter verifying incarceration	Reversed: Bankers did not meet art. 345(D) requirements (no proof Magee was incarcerated on motion filing date; no proof of payment of return costs), so forfeiture reinstated
Whether the Jan. 28, 2013 judgment setting aside the Apr. 3, 2012 bond forfeiture was proper under La. C.Cr.P. art. 349.9	Motion to set aside was untimely (filed one day after 180-day period) and the submitted letter was not a proper affidavit from a jailer/warden	Relief appropriate because Magee was detained in another jurisdiction and Bankers submitted a letter verifying incarceration	Reversed: motion untimely under art. 349.9 and submitted “letter” was not an adequate sworn affidavit from a responsible officer; forfeiture reinstated
Whether the State’s appeal was premature	State’s motions for new trial/vacatur were timely because clerk never mailed the judgments to the State, so the 7-day new-trial period did not run	(implicit) judgments were effectively final	Appeal not premature: lack of mailing under La. C.C.P. art. 1913 rendered the State’s new-trial motion timely; appellate jurisdiction proper
Whether the State acquiesced or had notice such that clerk’s mailing was unnecessary	No: the State had no notice of the motions/hearings and did not possess all information to oppose the motions	In analogous case, State had acquiesced and thus service/mailing was not required	Court distinguished prior case and found no acquiescence here; proper notice was required and not given

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 200 So. 3d 950 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (describing purpose of bail and bond-forfeiture principles)
State v. Dennis, 165 So. 3d 1124 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (interpreting art. 345(D) and requirements for surety relief)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. State, 843 So. 2d 641 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (noting bond forfeitures are disfavored and statutory strictness)
Overmier v. Traylor, 475 So. 2d 1094 (La.) (cured defects and not dismissing appeals after cure)
Sullivan v. Franicevich, 899 So. 2d 602 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (denial of motion for new trial during pendency of appeal cures prematurity)
Moon v. Moon, 244 So. 2d 301 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (resolving doubt about mailing certificate in favor of appellant)