State v. Mitchell
421 S.C. 365
S.C.2017Background
- Deangelo Mitchell was released on a $150,000 surety bond (consolidated from earlier bonds) with conditions including house arrest and electronic monitoring.
- AA Ace Bail by Frances and Palmetto Surety Corp. (Bond Company) executed the bond; Frances Jenkins acted as bondsperson.
- Monitoring company repeatedly reported daily electronic monitoring and house-arrest violations; monitoring urged Jenkins to arrest Mitchell, which she declined.
- The circuit court found Mitchell willfully violated bond conditions and found Jenkins willfully failed to fulfill her obligations; the bond was revoked and Mitchell was jailed.
- The State moved to estreat the bond; the circuit court ordered forfeiture of $75,000 (half of $150,000). Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a surety bond may be estreated for violations of bond conditions beyond failure to appear | State: bond purpose includes assuring good behavior; estreatment proper for breaches of bond conditions | Bond Co.: surety's sole purpose is appearance; surrender/appearance should require full remission if State not prejudiced | Court: estreatment may be ordered for nonappearance and other condition breaches; here repeated violations supported estreatment |
| Whether surrender/appearance of defendant requires full remission of forfeiture | Bond Co.: once defendant is surrendered/appears, surety entitled to remission if State not prejudiced | State: surrender does not automatically relieve surety; obligation remains for default | Court: surrender/appearance does not entitle surety to remission as a matter of right; remission discretionary |
| Proper factors in deciding remission amount | State: consider purpose, nature/willfulness of default, prejudice/expense to State (Polk factors) | Bond Co.: remission should focus on State’s actual costs and lack of prejudice since Mitchell appeared | Court: Polk factors apply but are not exclusive; court may consider other relevant factors including bondsperson’s willfulness |
| Whether the bondsperson’s conduct may be considered in remission analysis | Bond Co.: liability should focus on defendant’s conduct; surety relieved by procuring appearance | State: bondsperson’s willful failure to supervise is relevant to forfeiture enforcement | Court: circuit court may consider willful failure of bondsperson to fulfill obligations when deciding whether and how much to remit |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Polk, 354 S.C. 8, 579 S.E.2d 329 (Ct. App. 2003) (sets factors for remission of bond forfeiture)
- Pride v. Anders, 266 S.C. 338, 223 S.E.2d 184 (1976) (surety remains liable for principal's default; surrender does not automatically exonerate)
- State v. McClinton, 369 S.C. 167, 631 S.E.2d 895 (2006) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for bond forfeiture/remission rulings)
- State v. Holloway, 262 S.C. 552, 206 S.E.2d 822 (1974) (procedures for estreatment and remission hearings)
- State v. Workman, 274 S.C. 341, 263 S.E.2d 865 (1980) (trial court has discretion to remit whole or part of forfeiture)
- State v. Boatwright, 310 S.C. 281, 423 S.E.2d 139 (1992) (appearance bonds may carry conditions beyond court appearance)
- United States v. Parr, 560 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1977) (discusses limits on factors relevant to court discretion)