First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 07-387
FIRST ARKANSAS BAIL BONDS, INC.
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered May 22, 2008
APPEAL FROM SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO., CR-2005-551,
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI,
JUDGE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JIM GUNTER, Associate Justice
This appeal arises from an order of the Sebastian County Circuit Court forfeiting a
$25,000 bond posted by Appellant First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. (“First Arkansas”) to assure
court attendance by criminal defendant Francisco Estrada. This case is one of three similar
cases certified to this court by the court of appeals pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(b)(1, 4-6)
(2007). For the reasons set forth in First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, __ Ark. __, __
S.W.3d __ (May 22, 2008) (07-386), we reverse the forfeiture judgment and remand for an
order consistent with this opinion.
On May 11, 2005, First Arkansas posted a $25,000 bail bond for Estrada’s release and
to assure his attendance on pending charges. Estrada failed to appear at his plea or trial request
hearing before the Sebastian County Circuit Court on November 16, 2005. On November
18, 2005, the circuit court entered an order to show cause and served it on First Arkansas.
On November 3, 2006, the circuit court entered a Bond Forfeiture Summons, directing the
circuit clerk to notify First Arkansas to appear on December 13, 2006, to show cause why the
full amount of the bond should not be forfeited to Sebastian County.
At the December 13, 2006 hearing, First Arkansas argued that the circuit court violated
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B) by not immediately issuing a summons for the showcause hearing upon Estrada’s failure to appear. The circuit court ruled that First Arkansas was
properly notified in November 2005 via certified letter and entered an order forfeiting the
$25,000 bond. On December 14, 2006, the circuit court filed its judgment against First
Arkansas. First Arkansas now brings this appeal.
On appeal, First Arkansas asserts that the November 3, 2006 summons was not
“immediately issued” as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B). In response, the
State contends that (1) First Arkansas has not preserved this argument for appeal; (2) in the
alternative, the November 18, 2005 order to show cause was a summons pursuant to Ark.
Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B); and (3) even if the order to show cause were not a
summons, First Arkansas received immediate notice of Estrada’s failure to appear, and the
circuit court’s letter setting and giving notice of the show-cause hearing actually favored First
Arkansas.
Statutory service requirements, being in derogation of common law rights, must be
strictly construed and compliance with them must be exact. See Brennan v. Wadlow, 372 Ark.
50, __ S.W.3d __ (2008); Caruth v. Design Interiors, Inc., 324 Ark. 373, 921 S.W.2d 944
(1996); Dougherty v. Sullivan, 318 Ark. 608 (1994). For the reasons set forth in First Arkansas
Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, __ Ark. __, __ S.W.3d __ (May 22, 2008) (07-386), we hold that the
circuit court’s forfeiture of First Arkansas’s bond failed to strictly comply with Ark. Code
Ann. § 16-84-207. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s forfeiture judgment against
-2-
First Arkansas and remand for an order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
