State v. CobbÂ, 254 N.C. App. 317

Robert J. Cobb posted a $30,000 appearance bond for Watauga County Superior Court case 15 CRS 050271; he failed to appear on 12 Jan 2016 and the court ordered forfeiture.
Deputy clerk mailed forfeiture notice on 14 Jan 2016 to Cobb and 1st Atlantic Surety via first-class mail.
On 8 June 2016 bail agent Ulonda Hill (for the surety) filed a motion (AOC-CR-213) to set aside the forfeiture, checking the box invoking G.S. § 15A-544.5(b)(3) (surrender by surety) but attaching an ACIS printout instead of AOC-CR-214 or a sheriff’s receipt.
The Board of Education objected; a hearing occurred and the trial court entered an order on 6 July 2016 finding the moving party had established one or more statutory reasons and set aside the forfeiture.
On appeal the Board argued the motion failed to comply with G.S. § 15A-544.5 because the required evidence (sheriff’s receipt/AOC-CR-214) was not attached; the majority vacated the trial court’s order for lack of statutory authority, the dissent would have affirmed given the silent/incomplete appellate record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had statutory authority to set aside the bond forfeiture where the motion attached only an ACIS printout rather than the sheriff’s receipt/AOC-CR-214 required by G.S. § 15A-544.5(b)(3)	Board: the attached ACIS printout did not satisfy § 15A-544.5(b)(3); motion lacked required documentation so court lacked authority to set aside forfeiture	Surety: motion invoked § 15A-544.5(b)(3) and court heard the matter; any supporting evidence could have been presented at the hearing and the order should be upheld	Majority: vacated trial court order — ACIS printout did not meet the statutory sheriff’s-receipt requirement and the record showed no other statutory ground; no basis to exercise authority to set aside forfeiture
Whether appellate court should presume trial-court regularity given absence of a hearing transcript in the record	Board: record as settled showed only the documents submitted and they did not support the ruling; appellate court should not speculate beyond the record	Surety (dissent): absent a complete record of the hearing, court should presume regularity and affirm	Majority: the submitted record showed error on its face (documents did not support any § 15A-544.5(b) ground), so presumption of regularity does not apply; vacated

State v. Williams, 218 N.C. App. 450 (2012) (§ 15A-544.5 is the exclusive avenue for relief from bond forfeiture)
State v. Sanchez, 175 N.C. App. 214 (2005) (trial court lacks authority to set aside forfeiture where motion is not premised on any § 15A-544.5 ground)
In re A.R.H.B., 186 N.C. App. 211 (2007) (presumption that judicial acts were duly performed unless record reveals otherwise)
Phelps v. McCotter, 252 N.C. 66 (1960) (presumption in favor of regularity and validity of lower-court proceedings)
King v. King, 146 N.C. App. 442 (2001) (appellant bears duty to provide a complete record; appellate court will not presume error when none appears)
Granville Med. Ctr. v. Tipton, 160 N.C. App. 484 (2003) (where record is silent, court presumes trial court acted correctly)
Joines v. Moffitt, 226 N.C. App. 61 (2013) (appellate review is limited to the record; court will not speculate about arguments not shown)
State v. Lazaro, 190 N.C. App. 670 (2008) (bench-trial standard: appellate review asks whether competent evidence supported trial court’s findings)
State v. Belton, 169 N.C. App. 350 (2005) (trial court may credit affidavits and clerk testimony to resolve notice/forfeiture disputes)
State v. Robertson, 166 N.C. App. 669 (2004) (forfeiture of appearance bond is controlled by statute; § 15A-544.5 governs relief)