State v. Cheadle, 2012 Ohio 2965

Breezy Bail Bonds posted a $3,000 surety bond to secure Cheadle’s appearance on June 7, 2011 after she failed to appear for assault proceedings.
The court ordered forfeiture of the bond if Cheadle did not appear within 30 days from the forfeiture trigger.
Cheadle was located in Texas and Breezy Bail Bonds notified and cooperated with law enforcement, culminating in her arrest on September 7, 2011.
Cheadle pled no contest to assault on September 21, 2011 and received a jail term of 180 days (one day suspended) plus five years of probation and costs of $251.
Breezy Bail Bonds filed a motion to remit the bond forfeiture, detailing efforts to locate and apprehend Cheadle and cooperation with authorities; the trial court denied the motion without explanation.
The Court of Appeals reverses, sustaining the assignment of error and remanding for a hearing and evaluation of the motion using the statutory factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying remittance without applying the statutory factors.	Breezy argues the court should balance factors and conduct a hearing.	Cheadle contends the denial was proper under the record as presented.	Yes; trial court abused discretion and remand for a hearing and factor-based evaluation.

State v. McQuay, 2011-Ohio-6709 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24673 (2011)) (remission of forfeiture requires considering listed factors)
State v. Delgado, 2004-Ohio-69 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2003-CA-28 (2004)) (balancing factors govern remission analysis)
Youngstown v. Durrett, 2010-Ohio-1313 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 09 MA 57 (2010)) (discusses remission standards and factors)
State v. Thornton, 2006-Ohio-786 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20963 (2006)) (abuse of discretion standard in remission ruling)
State v. Patton, 60 Ohio App.3d 99, 573 N.E.2d 1201 (6th Dist. 1989) (forfeiture may be set aside if justice requires)