State v. Naegle, 34,451

Mickey’s Bail Bonds (through agent Sherron Little) posted a $5,000 bail bond for Michael Naegle in Lea County Magistrate Court after criminal charges; Naegle failed to appear at a preliminary hearing.
Magistrate court issued bench warrant, gave multiple notices of forfeiture hearings, and on May 16, 2013 entered a default judgment forfeiting the bond when neither defendant nor surety appeared.
Appellants appealed to the district court; after delays they captured Naegle in Arkansas and returned him to New Mexico; district court held a hearing on the appeal.
District court reviewed whether Appellants were thwarted by Arkansas when trying to apprehend Naegle and whether Appellants showed "good cause" or had surrendered the defendant before forfeiture; it affirmed the magistrate forfeiture and remanded for enforcement.
Appellants raised for the first time on appeal a request for remittitur under NMSA 1978 § 31-3-2(F); the appellate court held remittitur must be sought in the court that rendered the forfeiture (magistrate court).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether magistrate forfeiture was proper / district court’s scope on appeal	Forfeiture complied with §31-3-2; district court properly reviewed magistrate ruling on appeal	Forfeiture was unreasonable given facts; Appellants had acted to secure defendant	Magistrate did not err; district court properly affirmed forfeiture on appeal
Whether Appellants showed "good cause" or surrender before judgment	State: no adequate showing that Appellants were obstructed or surrendered defendant before forfeiture	Appellants: impeded by Arkansas, acted diligently to apprehend/extradite defendant	Appellants failed to show good cause or prior surrender; Amador distinguished; forfeiture upheld
Whether remittitur under §31-3-2(F) could be decided by district court on appeal	State: remittitur issue not preserved; belongs to magistrate court that rendered forfeiture	Appellants: entitled to remittitur because they aided in apprehension	Not ripe here—§31-3-2(F) requires remittitur motion in the court that rendered the forfeiture (magistrate); remand to magistrate for any remittitur proceeding
Constitutional challenge to §31-3-2(F) (separation of powers)	State: §31-3-2(F) infringes judicial power and is unconstitutional	Appellants did not press this; primarily sought remittitur	Court declined to address constitutional claim as premature; avoid constitutional ruling until magistrate acts

State v. Amador, 648 P.2d 309 (N.M. 1982) (bondsman who is diligent but thwarted by another sovereign may have forfeiture set aside)
State v. Ramirez, 637 P.2d 556 (N.M. 1981) (magistrate that rendered forfeiture retains jurisdiction to hear remittitur)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard; decision must not be clearly untenable or against logic)