Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department B
In re BOND FORFEITURE IN PINAL COUNTY CAUSE NUMBERS CR201103204, CR201101969, and CR201101968
Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause Nos. CR201103204, CR201101969, CR201101968 Honorable Dwight P. Callahan, Judge Pro Tempore
M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney By Craig Cameron Florence Attorneys for Appellee.
Eckert & Facciola, PLLC By Tamra Facciola Tempe Attorneys for Appellants.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
¶1 Regulator Bail Bonds ("Regulator") appeals from the trial court's order forfeiting three appearance bonds totaling $70, 000, posted on behalf of defendant Arlie Perryman. Regulator argues that the court abused its discretion in ordering the forfeiture without first considering all relevant factors. Finding no error, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's judgment. State v. Garcia Bail Bonds, 201 Ariz. 203, ¶ 5, 33 P.3d 537, 539 (App. 2001). In August 2011, Perryman was arrested and charged in two separate causes for theft of means of transportation, unlawful use of means of transportation, and trafficking in stolen property. He was released from custody in October after Regulator posted two separate appearance bonds for $10, 000 each on his behalf.
¶3 Perryman attended all hearings related to those charges, but was arrested again on December 16 for theft of means of transportation and unlawful use of means of transportation. The bond for the new charges was set at $50, 000. In January 2012, Regulator filed a "motion to exonerate" each of the first two appearance bonds in the Pinal County Superior Court, as Perryman had been re-incarcerated in the same jurisdiction for the December 16 charges. The court never ruled on the motions.
¶4 On January 11, Regulator posted the $50, 000 bond on Perryman's behalf Two months later on March 8, the Pinal County Attorney moved that Perryman be declared non-bondable pursuant to article II, § 22(A)(2) of the Arizona Constitution. Perryman's counsel was notified of the motion, but Regulator claimed it had not received notice, which the state did not contest. According to Regulator, Perryman had last communicated with his counsel on March 9. He then failed to appear for a settlement conference on March 23, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.
¶5 At a bond forfeiture hearing on June 19, the trial court ordered all three appearance bonds forfeited, stating that Regulator must have contemplated the $70, 000 responsibility and the likelihood the state would seek to take custody of Perryman. Regulator now appeals that judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
¶6 We review a trial court's decision to forfeit an appearance bond for an abuse of discretion. State v. Old West Bonding Co., 203 Ariz. 468, ¶ 9, 56 P.3d 42, 45 (App. 2002). Regulator contends the court committed such an abuse in 1) failing to exonerate the two $10, 000 bonds pursuant to its motions for exoneration, filed in January 2012; and 2) failing to consider mitigating factors in its decision to forfeit the $50, 000 bond, ...