State v. Worley
2012 Ohio 484
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Worley was indicted on Nov 12, 2010 for receiving stolen property and bond set at $5,000 cash or surety.
- AA/Craven Bail Bonds posted Worley's bond as surety; bond continued at arraignment.
- Worley failed to appear for pretrial on Feb 4, 2011; trial court revoked bond and issued capias.
- Bond-forfeiture hearing held Mar 7, 2011; neither Worley nor appellant appeared; court entered $5,000 judgment against appellant.
- Appellant moved on Mar 16, 2011 to set aside judgment and discharge surety under Civ.R.60(B); state opposed and hearing held.
- Worley later appeared, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 10 months on Apr 25, 2011; the trial court denied the Civ.R.60(B) motion on Jun 7, 2011; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) relief from bond-forfeiture was proper | Craven: Worley’s incarceration constitutes excusable neglect meriting relief | State: no excusable neglect; nonappearance at show-cause hearing negates relief | No abuse of discretion; failed GTE test; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (1987) (three-part Civ.R.60(B) test and discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial court rulings)
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976) (three-prong syllabus test for relief under Civ.R.60(B))
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988) (requirements for relief under Civ.R.60(B))
- Argo Plastic Prod. Co. v. Cleveland, 15 Ohio St.3d 389, 474 N.E.2d 328 (1984) (Civ.R.60(B) standards application)
- State v. Hughes, 27 Ohio St.3d 19, 501 N.E.2d 622 (1986) (purpose of bail and forfeit mechanics)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996) (excusable neglect definition circumstances)
- Emery v. Smith, 5th Dist. Nos. 2005CA00051, 2005CA00098, 2005-Ohio-5526 (2005) (excusable neglect concept in fifth district)
- Vanest v. Pillsbury Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 525, 706 N.E.2d 825 (1997) (contextual definition of neglect and inaction)
- State v. Yount, 175 Ohio App.3d 733, 2008-Ohio-1155 (2008) (incarceration as meritorious defense in certain contexts)