State of Tennessee v. Clayton Nelvis, 720 S.W.3d 706

Clayton Nelvis was arrested in January 2023, with 1st Out Bonding Company acting as surety on his $7,500 bail bond.
Nelvis failed to appear for his arraignment, leading to a conditional judgment of bond forfeiture; the surety received notice and was granted 180 days to show cause why the forfeiture should not become final.
The surety did not respond within 180 days and did not appear at the final forfeiture hearing on January 23, 2024; the court entered a final judgment of forfeiture.
Two weeks later, the surety moved for relief, claiming the State’s failure to enter Nelvis into a fugitive database within 10 days extinguished liability under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-139(d).
The trial court denied the motion as untimely, emphasizing the surety’s failure to act promptly or appear at the final hearing.
On appeal, the surety argued that liability was automatically extinguished due to the State's statutory violation.

Issue	Surety's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-139(d) automatically extinguish surety liability for failure to timely enter the defendant into a database?	Liability was extinguished by statutory violation regardless of surety’s inaction.	Surety had to timely assert statutory defense; non-compliance does not bar forfeiture automatically.	Statute is not self-executing; surety must timely assert and prove defense.
Was the surety's motion for relief from forfeiture timely and procedurally proper?	Motion was proper after discovering statutory violation.	Motion was untimely—surety failed to appear at hearing or act within 180 days.	Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying untimely motion.
Did the trial court err in entering the forfeiture order nunc pro tunc?	Entry was improper and prejudicial.	No prejudice to surety; oral ruling was clear on the record.	No error; nunc pro tunc entry permissible due to clerical delay.
Does the law require the court to grant relief from forfeiture sua sponte upon statutory violation?	Yes, automatic relief required.	No, burden remains on surety to raise and prove statutory defense.	Burden is on surety; court need not grant relief sua sponte.

In re Rader Bonding Co., 592 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2019) (sets standard for trial court discretion in bail forfeiture relief)
In re Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds, Inc., 96 S.W.3d 199 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (addresses surety’s opportunity for relief and hearing in forfeiture proceedings)
State v. Shredeh, 909 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (discusses conditional judgment and writ of scire facias for sureties)
Paul’s Bonding Co., 62 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (clarifies burden and procedure for surety seeking to avoid final forfeiture)