State v. Wane
2020 Ohio 4874
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Safietou Youhanidou Wane was charged in two municipal-court cases: petty theft (Case No. 2018CRB3900) and contempt (Case No. 2019CRB00103). Bonds of $5,000 and $7,500 were posted via Danny's Bail Bonds; Daniel Seifu signed recognizances that bound Allegheny Casualty Company (ACC) as surety.
- Limited powers of attorney authorized Seifu to execute bonds and bind ACC but did not authorize him to accept service on ACC.
- Wane missed scheduled court dates in both cases. The court notified Danny's Bail Bonds by letter and set show-cause hearings (Mar. 28, 2019 for Case No. 2018CRB3900; July 11, 2019 for Case No. 2019CRB00103). The record lacks evidence the court sent those hearing notices to ACC.
- The court held the show-cause hearings in both cases in the surety’s absence and entered forfeiture judgments ($5,000 and $7,500).
- ACC moved to set aside the forfeitures and for remission in both cases, arguing it lacked notice and (for the second case) that Wane was incarcerated in Hamilton County on the show-cause date and thus could not be produced. The municipal court denied both motions.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District affirmed the denial for Case No. 2018CRB3900 (ACC had not raised lack-of-notice below and conceded the defendant was not incarcerated on the Mar. 28 hearing date) but reversed and remanded as to Case No. 2019CRB00103 because ACC showed it did not receive notice and the defendant was incarcerated elsewhere on the hearing date, prejudicing its ability to show good cause to avoid forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACC) | Defendant's Argument (State/CT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying ACC's motion to set aside forfeiture/remit bond in Case No. 2018CRB3900 | Forfeiture improper because ACC could not produce Wane and believed bail agent/attorney were defending | Court followed procedures; forfeiture proper | Affirmed — ACC did not preserve/raise lack-of-notice below and conceded Wane was not incarcerated on the show-cause date |
| Whether the court erred in denying ACC's motion to set aside forfeiture/remit bond in Case No. 2019CRB00103 | ACC received no notice of the July 11 show-cause hearing and Wane was incarcerated in another county on that date, so ACC was prejudiced and could have shown good cause | Court entered forfeiture after hearing in surety’s absence | Reversed and remanded — lack of notice prejudiced ACC; it could have shown good cause (defendant incarcerated elsewhere) to avoid forfeiture |
| Proper standard and required procedure for bail forfeiture | N/A (procedural issue framed by ACC’s relief motions) | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; statutory scheme requires notice to surety and opportunity to show cause before judgment of forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 57 Ohio St.3d 11 (1991) (producing the defendant's body or proof of incarceration is a showing of good cause to avoid forfeiture)
- State v. Sexton, 132 Ohio App.3d 791 (4th Dist. 1999) (defendant incarcerated in another jurisdiction makes production impossible and constitutes good cause)
- Dep’t of Liquor v. Calvert, 195 Ohio App.3d 627 (6th Dist. 2011) (describes R.C. procedures for adjudication and notice requirements in forfeiture proceedings)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (explains abuse-of-discretion review and reasoned decision requirement)
- State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470 (2018) (defines ‘arbitrary’ decision in abuse-of-discretion context)