No. 67786 

FILED 

JUN 3 0 2016 

IE K. LINDEMAN 

C - ER F. R CQU 

BY 

CHIEF DP C 

132 Nev., Advance Opinion iji 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

RICHARD JUSTIN, D/B/A JUSTIN 

BROS BAIL BONDS; AND 

INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE 

JANET J. BERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the 

denial of a motion to exonerate a bail bond. 

Petition denied. 

Richard F. Cornell, Reno, 

for Petitioners. 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg and Robert L. Eisenberg, Reno, 

for Respondents. 

Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Christopher. J. Hicks, 

District Attorney, and Keith G. Munro, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe 

County, 

for Real Party in Interest. 

BEFORE DOUGLAS CHERRY and GIBBONS, JJ. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A I - Zu-Lco 
OPINION 

By the Court, DOUGLAS, J.: 

In this writ petition challenging a district court order denying 

exoneration of a bail bond, we are asked to consider whether Nevada's 

statutory scheme governing bail bonds provides for automatic exoneration 

of a surety bond when a defendant is remanded to custody or convicted. 

We conclude that NRS 178.509's plain language does not espouse such an 

intent. Accordingly, we deny writ relief. 

FACTS 

On September 18, 2013, Norman Dupree was arrested and 

incarcerated in Washoe County Jail. Dupree's bail bond was set at 

$25,000. Petitioners Justin Bros Bail Bonds and International Fidelity 

Insurance Company (collectively Justin Bros) 1posted Dupree's bond (bond 

number one). The respective bond agreement provided that Dupree would 

answer to the charges specified and be amenable to the orders and process 

of the court. The agreement further specified that if Dupree failed to meet 

its conditions, Justin Bros would pay the State of Nevada $25,000. 

On January 30, 2014, while out of custody on bail, Dupree 

appeared before the Second Judicial District Court for arraignment. 

During the hearing, the district court ordered Dupree to complete drug 

testing. Dupree tested positive, and consequently, the district court added 

supervision to the conditions of his bail and rescheduled his arraignment 

for March 18, 2014. 

'Justin Bros is the agent of International Fidelity Insurance 

Company. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A .Caiip 
Dupree was remanded to custody based on a pretrial 

supervision violation on January 31, 2014. Bonafide Bail Bonds then 

posted a $20,000 bond (bond number two) on February 3, 2014, to secure 

Dupree's rerelease from custody. Justin Bros did not attempt to exonerate 

bond number one during the time Dupree was incarcerated. 

On March 18, after Dupree failed to appear for his 

arraignment, the district court issued notices of intent to forfeit. The 

district court provided that bond number one and bond number two would 

be declared forfeited in 180 days under NRS 178.506, 178.509, and 

178.514 and noted that Dupree's failure to appear for his scheduled 

arraignment constituted a breach of the agreed-upon conditions of bail. 

On March 21, the district court issued a bench warrant, and set bond at 

$50,000, cash only. But according to Dupree, when he attempted to 

surrender himself on March 21, the Washoe County Sheriffs Office did not 

take him into custody because the bench warrant was not entered in the 

justice system records. 

Thereafter, Dupree surrendered himself to Bonafide. In turn, 

Bonafide surrendered him to the Washoe County Sheriffs Office on 

May 14, 2014, and bond number two was exonerated. Dupree's 

arraignment was rescheduled for June 10, 2014, and Justin Bros, without 

seeking to exonerate bond number one, posted another bond for $20,000 

(bond number three) to secure Dupree's release pending the June 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I947A AD. 
arraignment. 2Dupree failed to appear for the June arraignment, and the 

district court ordered that bond number three be forfeited. 

Dupree's counsel subsequently requested a status hearing, 

which was scheduled for July 24, 2014. Again, Dupree failed to appear. 

The district court took no further action, noting that the bench warrant 

with bail set at $50,000 was still active. 

In August 2014, Justin Bros filed a motion for exoneration of 

bond number one, arguing that it was never informed of Dupree's June 10 

arraignment and that it was unclear whether Dupree was informed. 

Justin Bros also argued that notwithstanding Dupree's failure to appear 

in court on June 10, bond number one should have been exonerated when 

the court revoked Dupree's supervised bail in January or when Bonafide 

posted bond number two in February, allowing Dupree to be rereleased. 

Respondent Second Judicial District Court Judge Janet Berry 

denied Justin Bros' motion, observing that: (1) Justin Bros did not attempt 

to• exonerate bond number one while Dupree was in custody from 

January 31 through February 3, or after Bonafide surrendered Dupree to 

custody on May 14, but instead posted bond number three; (2) Dupree 

failed to appear for his arraignments, had yet to be arraigned, and 

remained out of custody despite Justin Bros' acknowledgment that it had 

been in contact with Dupree; and (3) a bench warrant had been issued. 

The court concluded that, because Dupree had not appeared before it since 

January 30, 2014, bond number one could not be exonerated. On 

2Although the $50,000 cash only bond was still in place, because it 

did not appear in the justice system records, Dupree was released on a 

$20,000 bond. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0)1947A 
October 6, 2014, the district court entered a judgment of forfeiture for 

bond number one. 

On October 23, 2014, Justin Bros filed a motion for 

reconsideration or an alternative order to set aside judgment, arguing that 

when Dupree's release was revoked on January 31, and he was taken back 

into custody, bond number one should have been exonerated pursuant to 

NRS 178.509(1)(b)(4) (providing that the court shall not exonerate the 

bond before the date of forfeiture unless the defendant is "being detained 

by civil . . . authorities"). Justin Bros also argued that when a new bail 

was set for the same charges and Bonafide posted bond number two, bond 

number one was automatically exonerated, as custody of Dupree then 

belonged to Bonafide. Further, Justin Bros maintained that because the 

$50,000 cash-only warrant had not been entered into the justice system 

records, Dupree was not held in custody after Bonafide turned him in, but 

instead was rebailed on bond number three, which replaced bonds one and 

two and therefore exonerated those bonds. 

While Justin Bros' motion was pending, Dupree surrendered. 

At that time, bond number three was exonerated. On December 8, 2014, 

Justin Bros filed a reply in support of its motion for reconsideration, 

pointing out that it had since surrendered Dupree to Washoe County 

authorities, and that surrender took place within the statutory 180-day 

forfeiture time limit. The district court denied Justin Bros' motion, 

finding that Justin Bros had not presented any different evidence or 

persuasive legal authority to support reconsideration, or demonstrated 

that the court's forfeiture judgment was erroneous to justify setting it 

aside. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A e 
Following Dupree's guilty plea conviction and sentencing, 

Justin Bros filed a motion to declare the bond forfeiture judgment 

unenforceable or completely satisfied, or to exonerate bond number one. 

Justin Bros argued that bond number one should have been exonerated by 

operation of law under NRS 178.509(1)(a), NRS 178.512(1)(a)(1), NRS 

178.514, NRS 178.522, NRS 178.526, and People v. Int? Fid. Ins. Co., 138 

Cal. Rptr. 3d 883, 886-87 (Ct. App. 2012). 3Justin Bros maintained that 

the following events triggered bond number one's exoneration: Dupree's 

remand to custody on January 31, 2014; Dupree's attempt to surrender to 

the Washoe County Sheriffs Office in March 2014; Bonafide's surrender of 

Dupree to custody on May 14, 2014, on bond number two; Justin Bros' 

surrender of Dupree to custody on bond number three, which occurred 

within 180 days of the court's notice of intent to forfeit bond; and Dupree's 

guilty plea and sentencing while in custody. 

The district court denied the motion, finding that Justin Bros 

did not timely address the forfeiture of bond number one. In addition, the 

district court concluded that Justin Bros' reliance on Accredited Surety 

was grounded in California's penal code, providing for automatic 

exoneration, whereas no similar codification exists under Nevada law. 

3Justin Bros cited to International Fidelity, 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 886- 

87, for the proposition that because the surety's responsibilities are based 

on its constructive custody of thefl defendant, when the defendant is 

remanded to custody, the surety no longer has responsibility for the 

defendant and the court "must act on its own motion to exonerate the 

bond, and if it fails to do so, exoneration is accomplished by operation of 

law." 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 6 

1 1.1) 1947A e 
Justin Bros now challenges the district court's order through an original 

petition for a writ of mandamus 

DISCUSSION 

A writ petition is the proper vehicle for challenging orders 

originating from ancillary bail bond proceedings. All Star Bail Bonds, Inc. 

v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 326 P.3d 1107, 1109 

(2014). A writ of mandamus may issue to compel the performance of an 

act required by the law, or to control a manifest abuse of discretion. Id. 

Therefore, the question is whether the "district court manifestly abused its 

discretion in deciding whether to exonerate a bail bond." Id. 

This petition presents an issue of statutory interpretation, 

namely, whether provisions of NRS Chapter 178 required the district 

court to exonerate bond number one or to set aside the forfeiture 

judgment. Statutory interpretation, even in the context of a writ petition, 

is a question of law that we review de novo. See All Star Bonding v. State, 

119 Nev. 47, 49, 62 P.3d 1124, 1125 (2003). When the plain language of a 

statute establishes the Legislature's intent, we "will give effect to such 

intention." We the People Nev. v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 881, 192 P.3d 1166, 

1170-71 (2008). 

Nevada law does not provide for automatic exoneration of a bail bond 

Justin Bros argues that various events, including Dupree's 

remand to custody on two occasions and his subsequent releases secured 

by bond numbers two and three, Dupree's attempt to surrender himself, 

Dupree's final surrender to Washoe County authorities through Justin 

Bros' bondsman, and Dupree's eventual guilty plea and sentence while in 

custody, required bond number one's exoneration by operation of law or 

that the bond forfeiture judgment be set aside. Justin Bros asserts that 

the district court "had no discretion and no legal authority to do anything 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 7 

(0) I947A 
but exonerate the [blond." In contrast, the State on behalf of Judge Berry 

argues that the district court may not exonerate a bail bond in the absence 

of statutory authority, and because no such authority existed here, the 

court was prohibited from ordering exoneration. We agree. 

NRS 178.509 provides: 

1. If the defendant fails to appear when the 

defendant's presence in court is lawfully required, 

the court shall not exonerate the surety before the 

date of forfeiture prescribed in NRS 178.508 

unless: 

(a) The defendant appears before the court 

and the court, upon hearing the matter, 

determines that the defendant has presented a 

satisfactory excuse or that the surety did not in 

any way cause or aid the absence of the defendant; 

or 

(b) The surety submits an application for 

exoneration on the ground that the defendant is 

unable to appear because the defendant: 

(1) Is dead; 

(2) Is ill; 

(3) Is insane; 

(4) Is being detained by civil Or 

military authorities; or 

(5) Has been deported, 

and the court, upon hearing the matter, 

determines that one or more of the grounds 

described in this paragraph exist and that the 

surety did not in any way cause or aid the absence 

of the defendant. 

2. If the requirements of subsection 1 are 

met, the court may exonerate the surety upon 

such terms as may be just. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

8 

(0) 1947A e 
The language of NRS 178.509 plainly prohibits courts from 

exonerating a bond for any reason other than those set forth under 

subsection 1. All Star Bail Bonds, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 326 P.3d at 

1110. It establishes a two-step approach to exonerate a bond after a 

defendant fails to appear for a court proceeding. In the first step, 

exoneration of the bond may be initiated by the defendant or the surety. 

The defendant may initiate the process by appearing in court before the 

date of forfeiture, at which time the district court must have determined 

that either the defendant provided a satisfactory excuse or that the surety 

did not aid in the defendant's absence. In the alternative, the surety may 

initiate the exoneration process by application. When the surety submits 

an application, the district court must have determined that the surety did 

not aid in the defendant's absence and that the defendant is unable to 

appear because he or she is dead, ill, insane, being detained by civil or 

military authorities, or has been deported. Thus, the first step is complete 

if the district court makes findings pursuant to either option. At step two, 

the district court may exonerate a bond Importantly, if the district court 

does not find that one of the conditions in the first step exists, then it 

"shall not" have the discretion to exonerate a bond. NRS 178.509(1). 

A plain reading of NRS 178.509 not only fails to support 

Justin Bros' argument that bond number one was exonerated by operation 

of law, but it demonstrates quite the opposite. Exoneration is, in fact, 

prohibited after a defendant fails to appear, save certain limited 

circumstances. All Star Bail Bonds, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 326 P.3d at 

1110 (noting that NRS 178.509(1)'s use of the words "shall not" 

demonstrates the Legislature's intent to prohibit the district court's 

discretion to exonerate a bond for any reasons other than the five 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 9 

(0) 1947A 0 
conditions listed in the statute). Indeed, even if one of the enumerated 

circumstances is met, exoneration is not mandatory. State V. Stu's Bail 

Bonds, 115 Nev. 436, 438, 991 P.2d 469, 470-71 (1999) ("Once the 

requirements of NRS 178.509(1) are met, the decision to grant exoneration 

of a bail bond rests within the discretion of the district court." (citing NRS 

178.509(2)). 

Here, it is undisputed that Dupree failed to appear for his 

arraignments, thereby breaching the agreement to answer the charges 

specified and to be amendable to the court process. Consequently, the 

district court was prohibited from exonerating bond number one, unless 

one of NRS 178.509(1)'s enumerated conditions materialized. But the 

district court did not find that Justin Bros did not aid Dupree's absence. 

To the contrary, the district court found that Justin Bros was admittedly 

in contact with Dupree, but failed to surrender him to the proper 

authorities. In addition, the district court did not make findings as to 

Dupree's reason for failing to appear at his arraignment. 4Thus, according 

to the undisputed facts, and in contrast to Justin Bros' argument, the 

district court would have abused its discretion by proceeding to exonerate 

Justin Bros' bond. 

4Justin Bros' argument that bond number one should have been 

exonerated pursuant to NRS 178.509(1)(b)(4) because he was taken into 

custody lacks merit. The appropriate inquiry is whether his detainment 

was the reason for his failure to appear. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 10 

(0) 1947 A e 
Because we conclude that the district court applied NRS 

178.509 properly, we deny writ relief. 

We concur: 

Gibbons 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

i(0) 1947A e 11