2019 Ohio 3996
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- TCB Bonding posted a $7,500 surety after a bench warrant for Anthony Urch was recalled; Urch had missed prior court dates.
- Urch failed to appear at a scheduled dismissal hearing on November 7, 2018; the court declared bail forfeited and set a show-cause hearing (notice to surety and defendant).
- On November 18, 2018, TCB Bonding located Urch and delivered him to the Geneva City Police Department, then informed the court by letter requesting discharge from liability.
- The next day Urch appeared in court and the court released him on a new $5,000 unsecured personal recognizance bond.
- At the December 26, 2018 show-cause hearing TCB’s representative appeared without counsel; Urch did not appear. The hearing was continued to January 30, 2019.
- On January 30, 2019 neither Urch nor TCB Bonding appeared; the trial court entered judgment forfeiting the $7,500 bond. On appeal the court reversed, holding TCB had shown good cause under R.C. 2937.36(C) by producing the body before the show-cause date.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | TCB Bonding's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surety showed "good cause" under R.C. 2937.36(C) to avoid bond forfeiture | No — surety did not show production of the accused at the show-cause and did not properly present a motion; defendant remained unavailable | Yes — surety apprehended and surrendered Urch to police on Nov. 18 (before the show-cause date) and notified the court, so good cause was shown | Reversed: appellate court held producing the body before the show-cause date constituted good cause and vacated the forfeiture judgment against the surety |
| Whether R.C. 2713.23 (civil exoneration on surrender) exonerates a surety in a criminal forfeiture | Applies — implies relief to surety | Applies — surety contends surrendering the defendant exonerates liability | Rejected: court held R.C. 2713.23 governs civil arrest/bail only and is inapplicable to criminal forfeiture proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scherer, 108 Ohio App.3d 586 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (discusses surety’s contractual obligation when accused fails to appear)
- State v. Hughes, 27 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1986) (explains bail’s purpose to secure appearance and references forfeiture procedure)
- Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., Inc. v. Florida, 383 So.2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (release on defendant’s own recognizance creates new contract between defendant and state; surety not party to new contract)