Title: J & J Bonding, Inc. v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

J & J BONDING, INC. v. STATE of Arkansas

97-48                                              ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 13, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- no way to determine from abstract and record
     whether argument made to circuit court -- argument not
     preserved for review. -- Appellant bonding company's
     contention that the circuit court erred in its application of
     Rule 6 and in failing to apply the procedures in Ark. Code
     Ann.  16-84-201 in forfeiting the appeal bond was not
     preserved for review because the supreme court was unable to
     determine from the record and abstract whether this argument
     was made to the circuit court and whether the circuit court
     ruled on it; because it could not be determined from the
     record which statutes were brought to the circuit court's
     attention, the issue was procedurally barred.

2.   Appeal & error -- no authority or convincing argument
     presented -- point affirmed on appeal. -- Appellant's argument
     that its due-process rights were violated because of
     insufficient notice of the Court of Appeals mandate, its lack
     of familiarity with Rule 6, and the absence of time in which
     to apprehend the bonded defendant before forfeiture was
     without merit; although some of these points were raised at
     the show-cause hearing, the arguments were not couched in
     terms of a constitutional violation; moreover, on appeal,
     appellant adduced no caselaw or other authority for its due-
     process contention; when an appellant does not cite authority
     or make a convincing argument and when it is not apparent
     without further research that the point is well taken, the
     supreme court will affirm.  

3.   Appeal & error -- appellant must provide supreme court with
     adequate record for review. -- It is incumbent on the
     appellant to provide the supreme court with an adequate record
     for review of the points raised on appeal.


     Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; John S. Patterson, Judge;
affirmed.
     Stuart Vess, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly Terry, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     This case concerns an appeal bond that was executed on January
5, 1994, on behalf of Gary D. Samples, who had been convicted of
sexual abuse and sentenced.  The appeal bond was issued by
appellant J & J Bonding, Inc.  On September 18, 1995, the Arkansas
Court of Appeals issued its mandate following an affirmance of the
judgment against Samples.  On September 19, 1995, a copy of the
mandate was filed with the Pope County Circuit Clerk.
     On May 6, 1996, the circuit court entered an order for J & J
Bonding to forfeit the appeal bond because Samples had failed to
surrender himself to authorities.  On July 16, 1996, a summons was
issued by the circuit clerk to "James Milburn Houston d/b/a J & J
Bonding  Inc."  That summons contained notice of a show-cause
hearing to be held on August 14, 1996, at which time the court
would determine whether the bond should be forfeited.
     Although J & J Bonding was represented by counsel, counsel did
not attend the hearing on August 14, 1996.  According to statements
made by the circuit court at the show-cause hearing, counsel for
the bonding company had sent a letter to the circuit court which
included his arguments of why the bond should not be forfeited. 
James Houston, however, did attend the hearing and spoke on behalf
of the bonding company.  The circuit court remarked that the
statutes referred to in counsel's letter were not applicable to an
appeal-bond situation.  The letter sent by counsel to the circuit
court has not been made part of the record on appeal, and the
statutes referred to by the circuit court were unidentified at the
show-cause hearing.
     Also, at the hearing, Houston advised the court that he had
not received notice of the Court of Appeals mandate until July 16,
1996, when he was served with the summons and notice.  As a
consequence, he requested additional time to apprehend Samples. 
The circuit court ruled that Rule 6 of the Arkansas Appellate Rules
- Criminal applied and that it did not provide for any additional
time for the bonding company to apprehend a missing appellant. 
The court ordered judgment to be entered against J & J Bonding in
the amount of $50,000, which was the amount of the bond.
     The bonding company now contends on appeal that the circuit
court erred in its application of Rule 6 and in failing to apply
the procedures in Ark. Code Ann.  16-84-201 in forfeiting the
appeal bond.  We conclude that this argument is not preserved for
our review because we are unable to determine from the record and
abstract whether this argument was made to the circuit court and
whether the circuit court ruled on it.  See Cosgrove v. City Of
West Memphis, 327 Ark. 324, 328, 938 S.W.2d 827 (1997); see also
Reeves v. Hinkle, 326 Ark. 724, 934 S.W.2d 216 (1996); Hardy
Constr. Co. v. Arkansas State Hwy. & Transp. Dept., 324 Ark. 496,
922 S.W.2d 705 (1996).  To be more precise, which statutes were
brought to the circuit court's attention cannot be determined from
the record.  Hence, the issue is procedurally barred.
     J & J Bonding next argues that its due-process rights were
violated because of insufficient notice of the Court of Appeals
mandate, its lack of familiarity with Rule 6, and the absence of
time in which to apprehend Samples before forfeiture.  This
argument has no merit.  It is true that Houston raised some of
these points at the show-cause hearing, but the arguments were not
couched in terms of a constitutional violation.  Moreover, on
appeal, J & J Bonding adduces no caselaw or other authority for its
due-process contention.  When an appellant does not cite authority
or make a convincing argument and when it is not apparent without
further research that the point is well taken, we will affirm. 
Qualls v. Ferritor, 329 Ark. 235, 947 S.W.2d 10 (1997).  There is
also the fact that Rule 6 was in effect at the time of the show-
cause hearing, and its procedures were followed by the circuit
court with respect to (1) the order of the circuit court forfeiting
the bond due to Samples's failure to surrender, (2) the summons and
notice to J & J Bonding regarding the show cause hearing, (3) the
hearing itself, and (4) the judgment of forfeiture.  See Appellate
Rules - Criminal, Rule 6(c).
     In short, because the record does not include counsel's
arguments raised in his letter to the circuit court, or the
statutes counsel deemed relevant for the trial court's
consideration, we will not address J & J Bonding's arguments
concerning the retroactivity of Rule 6 or its potential conflict
with state statutes.  It is incumbent on the appellant to provide
this court with an adequate record for review of the points raised
on appeal.  Cosgrove v. City of West Memphis, supra; King v. State,
325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996).
     Affirmed.