IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs September 10, 2013

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN THOMAS HUMMONS

IN RE: DANNY BLANKENSHIP BONDING COMPANY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 12-162 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2012-02033-CCA-R3-CO Filed - January 10, 2014

Appellant bonding company, Danny Blankenship Bonding Company, filed a petition for

exoneration of bond in the Madison County Circuit Court case of State v. John Thomas

Hummons, case number 12-162. The petition was denied by the trial court. In this

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 appeal by the appellant, we reverse the ruling of

the trial court and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an appropriate order

granting the petition to exonerate Appellant bonding company from the defendant’s bond.

Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD

WITT, JR. and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Joel H. Moseley, Sr., Joel H. Moseley, Jr., Murfreesboro, Tennessee; and Lee Richard

Sparks,Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant/surety, Danny Blankenship Bonding Company.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Assistant Attorney

General; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Shaun A. Brown, Assistant

District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On June 28, 2013, a panel of this court entered an order in this case which thoroughly

and adequately sets forth the facts and procedural history of this case. That order states as

follows:
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss

this appeal. The State contends that the trial court did not issue a final order

that is appealable pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate

Procedure. The Appellant bonding company requests that this Court

consider the appeal as an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10,

Tennessee Rules of Appellant Procedure. The State concedes that the

appeal meets the requirements for an extraordinary appeal.

The Defendant John Thomas Hummons was arrested and charged

with being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. The Defendant’s

bond was set at $10,000, and the Appellant bonding company underwrote

the Defendant’s bond. The Defendant was indicted for the offense but

failed to appear for arraignment. The trial court declared a conditional

forfeiture on the appearance bond, issued a writ of scire facias to the

Appellant bonding company, and ordered that a capias issue for the

Defendant’s arrest.

The Appellant bonding company filed a petition for exoneration of

liability in the trial court on the grounds that the Defendant was incarcerated

in the Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois, and that a hold or detainer had

been placed by the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. During a

hearing on August 27, 2012, an agent for the Appellant bonding company

informed the trial court that the Defendant was serving a sixteen-year

sentence in the Cook County Jail and that a detainer had been filed with the

detaining authority.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the petition

“at this point.” The trial court stated that the Appellant bonding company

had not fulfilled its obligation to produce the Defendant in the Madison

County [Circuit] Court or at the jail. The court further stated that “[a]t that

point then I would certainly consider granting you the exoneration, but until

you’ve fulfilled your obligation, I’m not going to grant your petition.” The

court declined to order the clerk to issue a final forfeiture “at this point.”

Rather, the court stated, “Well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether

or not in 16 years if the sheriff department decides to bring him back.

You’re not going to have to pay the full bond at this point, we’ll just show

it continued.” The trial court did not issue a written order.

-2-
On September 25, 2012, the Appellant bonding company filed notice

of appeal pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The

State correctly states that the trial court did not issue a final judgment. Rule

3 provides for appeals as of right from final judgments. This Court,

however, may review an improperly filed Rule 3 appeal as an extraordinary

appeal pursuant to Rule 10, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

State v. Norris, 47 S.W.3d 457, 463 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).

Rule 10 provides for the granting of an extraordinary appeal in the

discretion of the appellate court where “the lower court has . . . departed

from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require

immediate review, or . . . if necessary for complete determination for the

action on appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10. In State v. Willoughby, our

supreme court held that an extraordinary appeal should only be granted:

(a) Where the ruling of the court represents a fundamental

illegality.

(b) Where the ruling constitutes a failure to proceed

according to the essential requirements of the law.

(c) Where the ruling is tantamount to the denial of either

party of a day in court.

(d) Where the action of the trial judge was without legal

authority.

(e) Where the action of the trial judge constituted a plain and

palpable abuse of discretion.

(f) Where either party has lost a right or interest that may

never be recaptured.

State v. Willoughby, 594 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Tenn. 1980). The trial court’s

decision effectively leavesthe matter open-ended until the Defendantserves

his sixteen-year sentence in Chicago. By denying the petition “at this time”

but declining to enter a final judgment, the trial court has deprived the

Appellant an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3. Under this criteria, we

conclude that the Appellant’s position is well-taken.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss

is DENIED and that the Appellant bonding company’s request that this

Court consider the appeal as an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 is

GRANTED.

-3-
The State concedes error by the trial court. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-

201(b) and (c) provide as follows:

(b) No forfeiture or conditional forfeiture of any appearance or bail bond

shall be rendered in any case where a statement of a licensed physician is

furnished the court showing that the principal in the bond is prevented from

attending by some mental or physical disability; or where an affidavit of the

jailer, warden or other responsible officer of a jail, workhouse or

penitentiary in which the principal is being detained shall be furnished the

court.

(c) The appearance or bail bond shall remain in full force and effect until

the principal is physically or mentally able to appear, or until a detainer

against the principal is filed with the detaining authority. On the filing of

a detainer, the bondsman and sureties shall remain liable for the expenses

of returning the principal to his jurisdiction for trial when the principal is

released by the detaining authority. If the detainer request is refused or if

the detaining authority releases the principal notwithstanding the filing of

the detainer, the surety shall not be liable in the undertaking. It shall be the

duty of the bondsman or surety to present to the presiding court, in a timely

manner, all appropriate documentation evidencing that the detainer was

properly filed or refused, or that the detaining authority released the

principal notwithstanding the filing of the detainer. The liability of any

bondsman or surety shall not exceed the amount of the bail bond. After

trial, however, if it is necessary to return the principal to the detaining

authority in another jurisdiction, all expenses incurred in the return shall be

paid by the state of Tennessee.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-201(b) and (c) (emphasis added).

Clearly, from a plain reading of the statute, the petition should have been granted.

The State asserts that the order exonerating Appellate bonding company should also include

language that Appellant bonding company remains statutorily “liable for the expenses of

returning the principal to this jurisdiction for trial when the principal is released by the

detaining authority.” Appellant bonding company asserts this language of the continued

liability for expenses is not necessary in the order because the liability is statutorily required

but concedes the additional language is not objectionable.

Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court on Appellant bonding company’s Petition to

Exonerate Surety is reversed. This matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to

-4-
enter an order granting Appellant bonding company exoneration of the bail bond in this case.

The order shall further state that Appellant bonding company shall remain liable for the

expenses of returning defendant John Thomas Hummons to the Madison County Circuit

Court for the purposes of trial or other disposition in case number 12-162 when defendant

is released by the detaining authority.

_________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-5-