First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
07-388
FIRST ARKANSAS BAIL BONDS, INC.,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered
May 22, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR-2005-562,
HON.
JAMES
ROBERT
MARSCHEWSKI, JUDGE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice
Appellant First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. appeals from the circuit court’s judgment
forfeiting its bond of $4,000 in favor of appellee the State of Arkansas. First Arkansas’s sole
point on appeal is that the circuit court’s forfeiture of its bond failed to comply with Ark.
Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2005). 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 and remand for entry of an order consistent with this
opinion.
A review of the record reveals the following facts. On May 27, 2005, Ever Alexander
Guardado’s bail bond agreement with First Arkansas was filed in the circuit court. On
January 25, 2006, Guardado failed to appear in the circuit court, and, on January 31, 2006,
the circuit court issued an order advising First Arkansas of Guardado’s failure to appear. The
order was sent by certified mail and provided:
Please be advised the above-named defendant(s) failed to appear in
Circuit Court on WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006, pursuant to written
notice being mailed on January 18, 2006. The one hundred and twenty (120)
day period commences to run as of the date of this Order to show cause why
the sum specified in the bail bond should not be forfeited.
Some months later, on November 3, 2006, the circuit court issued a bond forfeiture
summons, reciting Guardado’s failure to appear and identifying First Arkansas as the surety on
Guardado’s bond, “which bond guaranteed the defendant’s appearance on said date and on
all dates as directed by the Court in these proceedings.” In addition, the summons stated that
no reasonable excuse had been advanced to justify the failure to appear and further provided:
THEREFORE, it is herein considered, ordered and adjudged that the
Circuit Clerk be, and hereby is directed to promptly cause an alias bench
warrant to be issued for the immediate arrest of the defendant, and to cause the
warrant to be delivered to the Sheriff of this Court for service upon the
defendant. Upon the apprehension or surrender of the defendant, the initial
appearance (bail) bond shall be $$5,000 ***CASH***; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Circuit Clerk be, and hereby
is, directed to promptly notify the surety (one or more) that the defendant
should be surrendered to the Sheriff of this Court as required by the terms of
the bail bond and notify the surety (one or more) to appear before the Circuit
Court on DECEMBER 13, 2006, at 9:00 AM to show cause why the full
amount specified in the bail bond or the money, if any, deposited in lieu of bail
should not be forfeited to Sebastian County.
On December 13, 2006, a hearing was held at which counsel for First Arkansas argued
that the summons issued on November 3 was not issued “immediately” as required by Ark.
Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B). The circuit court rejected that argument and found
judgment in favor of the State and against First Arkansas. The circuit court entered its
-2-
07-388
judgment on December 14, 2006, and First Arkansas filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, First Arkansas contends that because the summons issued November 3,
2006, was not issued “immediately” as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-84-207(b)(2)(B),
strict compliance with the statute was not had, and the circuit court’s judgment should be
reversed. As already stated, this case is one of three in which the same issue on appeal is
raised. 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 strict compliance was not had, and we
reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
-3-
07-388
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.