State v. McQuay
2011 Ohio 6709
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Craven posted a $5,000 surety bond to ensure McQuay's appearance; McQuay failed to appear for a February 28, 2011 pretrial.
- The court issued a show-cause for forfeiture and Craven requested a continuance to locate McQuay, which the court denied; the bond was forfeited on April 1, 2011.
- Craven later alleged McQuay was apprehended in North Carolina and returned to Montgomery County Jail; McQuay pled guilty to a reduced assault charge and received probation in April 2011.
- Craven renewed its motion for return of the forfeited funds on April 26, 2011, after the guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion on May 6, 2011.
- The trial court relied solely on R.C. 2937.36 to deny remission; Craven argued remission under R.C. 2937.39 was the proper basis for relief.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by not weighing the Delgado factors under R.C. 2937.39 and remanded for reconsideration consistent with Delgado.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May remission be considered under 2937.39 after judgment of forfeiture? | Craven | McQuay | Remand for consideration under 2937.39 |
| Did the trial court err by relying solely on 2937.36 to deny remission? | Craven | State | Yes; weighing Delgado factors required |
| Were Delgado factors required to be considered despite no evidentiary hearing request? | Craven | State | Yes; court must apply factors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delgado, 2004-Ohio-69 (Clark App. 2004) (require weighing factors for remission under 2937.39)
- State v. Jackson, 153 Ohio App.3d 520 (Ohio App. 2003) (balance of interests in bond remission)
- State v. Thornton, 2006-Ohio-786 (Montgomery App. 2006) (abuse of discretion in remission analysis; factors apply)
- State v. Hardin, 2003-Ohio-7263 (Lucas App. 2003) (hearing not always required for remission)