IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA20-43

Filed: 3 November 2020

Jones County, No. 18 CR 50340

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

CAROLYN VONDESSA DOSS, Defendant,

and

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUAL, Surety/Bail Agent/Appellant.

Appeal by surety-bail agent-appellant from order entered 25 October 2019 by 

Judge William B. Sutton in Jones County District Court. Heard in the Court of 

Appeals 26 August 2020.

Greene, Wilson & Crow, P.A., by Kelly L. Greene and Thomas R. Wilson, for 

appellant Accredited Surety and Casual.

Tharrington Smith LLP, by Rod Malone and Stephen G. Rawson, for appellee 

Jones County Board of Education.

Campbell Shatley, PLLC, by Christopher Z. Campbell, Kristopher L. Caudle,

and John F. Henning, Jr., for North Carolina School Boards Association.

Allison B. Schafer for North Carolina School Boards Association.

BERGER, Judge.

On October 25, 2019, the trial court entered an order which granted Reginal 

Beasley’s (“Bail Agent”) and Accredited Surety and Casual’s motion to set aside 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

forfeiture. However, the trial court also ordered Bail Agent to pay sanctions in the 

amount of $500.00 because Bail Agent failed to attach sufficient documentation with 

its motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5. In addition, the trial court 

prohibited Bail Agent from becoming surety on any future bonds in Jones County 

until the judgment was satisfied. Bail Agent appeals, arguing that the trial court 

abused its discretion when it granted Jones County Board of Education’s (the 

“Board”) motion for sanctions. We agree, and reverse the trial court’s order for 

sanctions.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 14, 2018, Carolyn Vondessa Doss (“Defendant”) was arrested for 

driving while impaired, placed in jail, and given a secured bond of $4,000.00. That 

same day, Accredited Surety and Casual, through its agent Bail Agent, posted bond 

in the amount of $4,000.00, and Defendant was released. On November 2, 2018, 

Defendant failed to appear, and an order for her arrest was issued. On November 10, 

2018, the trial court issued and mailed a bond forfeiture notice to Accredited Surety 

and Casual, Bail Agent, and Defendant. 

On March 29, 2019, Bail Agent filed a motion to set aside forfeiture using form 

AOC-CR-213. As grounds for relief, Bail Agent checked boxes 2 – “All charges for 

which the defendant was bonded to appear have been finally disposed by the court 

other than by the State taking a dismissal with leave as evidenced by the attached 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

copy of the official court record” – and 4 – “The defendant has been served with an 

order for arrest for the failure to appear on the criminal charge in the case in question 

as evidenced by a copy of an official court record, including an electronic record.”1 An 

Automated Criminal/Infractions System (“ACIS”) printout showing that Defendant

had been assigned a new court date was attached to the motion. 

On April 12, 2019, the Board filed its objection to the motion, and noticed

hearing for May 10, 2019. The left margin contained the following typed language: 

“Surety shall take notice that the Board of Education reserves the right to seek, as a 

sanction, reimbursement of all attorney fees and expenses incurred in objecting to 

this motion if Surety provides additional documentation after the date of this 

objection.” 

Prior to the hearing on the Board’s objection to the motion to set aside, Bail 

Agent provided the Board’s counsel with additional documentation that 

demonstrated the order for arrest had been served. The record does not contain a 

written motion for sanctions or notice of hearing on the issue of sanctions from the 

Board. 

On October 25, 2019, the Board’s objection to Bail Agent’s motion was heard. 

At the hearing, the Board’s counsel conceded that the additional documentation was 

sufficient to set aside forfeiture, and the trial court granted Bail Agent’s motion to set 

 

1 Bail Agent claims that box 2 was checked accidentally, and Bail Agent attempted to cure this 

mistake by initialing above box 2.
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

aside. The trial court also ordered sanctions against Bail Agent in the amount of 

$500.00 for failure to attach sufficient documentation to the motion to set aside. 

Further, the trial court prohibited Bail Agent from becoming “surety on any bail bond 

in Jones County until” Bail Agent satisfied the judgment. 

Bail Agent appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in 

assessing sanctions. We agree.

Standard of Review

A trial court’s ruling on imposition of sanctions will not be disturbed absent an 

abuse of discretion. State v. Cortez, 229 N.C. App. 247, 267, 747 S.E.2d 346, 360 

(2013). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its determination is manifestly 

unsupported by reason and is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a 

reasoned decision.” State v. Cummings, 361 N.C. 438, 463, 648 S.E.2d 788, 803 (2007) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

Analysis

“The goal of the bonding system is the production of the defendant, not 

increased revenues for the county school fund.” State v. Locklear, 42 N.C. App. 486, 

489, 256 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1979).

“A statute that is clear on its face must be enforced as written.” State v. 

Moraitis, 141 N.C. App. 538, 541, 540 S.E.2d 756, 757 (2000). “As a cardinal principle 

of statutory interpretation, if the language of the statute is clear and is not 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

ambiguous, we must conclude that the legislature intended the statute to be 

implemented according to the plain meaning of its terms.” State v. Reaves-Smith, ___ 

N.C. App. ___, ___, 844 S.E.2d 19, 24 (2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction 

that a statute must be considered as a whole and 

construed, if possible, so that none of its provisions shall be 

rendered useless or redundant. It is presumed that the 

legislature . . . did not intend any provision to be mere 

surplusage. 

State v. Conley, 374 N.C. 209, 215, 839 S.E.2d 805, 809 (2020) (citation and quotation

marks omitted). 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8) states that 

If at the hearing [on the motion to set aside] the court 

determines . . . that the documentation required to be 

attached . . . was not attached to the motion at the time the 

motion was filed, the court may order monetary sanctions 

against the surety filing the motion, unless the court also 

finds that the failure to sign the motion or attach the 

required documentation was unintentional. A motion for 

sanctions and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served 

on the surety not later than 10 days before the time 

specified for the hearing. If the court concludes that a 

sanction should be ordered, in addition to ordering the 

denial of the motion to set aside, sanctions shall be imposed 

as follows: (i) twenty-five percent (25%) of the bond amount 

for failure to sign the motion; (ii) fifty percent (50%) of the 

bond amount for failure to attach the required 

documentation; and (iii) not less than one hundred percent 

(100%) of the bond amount for the filing of fraudulent 

documentation. Sanctions awarded under this subdivision 

shall be docketed by the clerk of superior court as a civil 

judgment as provided in G.S. 1-234. The clerk of superior 

court shall remit the clear proceeds of the sanction to the 

county finance officer as provided in G.S. 115C-452. This 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

subdivision shall not limit the criminal prosecution of any 

individual involved in the creation or filing of any 

fraudulent documentation.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8) (2019). 

Section 15A-544.5(d)(8) addresses grounds for sanctions, a procedure for 

seeking sanctions, permissible sanctions, and satisfaction of any judgment relating 

to sanctions. By the plain language of the statute, sanctions may only be allowed if 

a motion to set aside is not signed, or the required documentation was not attached 

at the time of filing the motion to set aside. 

In addition, Section 15A-544.5(d)(8) specifically states that “If at the hearing

the court determines that the motion to set aside was not signed or that the 

documentation required to be attached pursuant to subdivision (1) . . ., the court may 

order monetary sanctions[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8) (emphasis added). 

Further, the statute only permits sanctions to be imposed if the motion to set aside is 

denied. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8) (“[I]f the court concludes that a sanction 

should be ordered, in addition to ordering the denial of the motion to set aside, 

sanctions shall be imposed” based on the amount of the bond (emphasis added)). 

Read in its entirety, the plain language of Section 15A-544.5(d)(8) requires the 

trial court to first hold a hearing and make a determination regarding the underlying 

motion to set aside. “The trial court’s authority to order sanctions against the surety 

who filed a motion to set aside is triggered [only after] the trial court” makes this 

initial determination. State v. Lemus, COA19-582, 2020 WL 1026548, at *4 (N.C. Ct. 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

App. 2020) (unpublished). A trial court may only impose sanctions under Section 

15A-544.5(d)(8) when the motion to set aside is denied, and by the plain language of 

this section, the trial court cannot order both that the forfeiture be set aside and that 

sanctions be imposed. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the 

motion to set aside and imposed sanctions against Bail Agent. 

Further, the Board failed to make a proper motion for sanctions. Pursuant to 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8), “[a] motion for sanctions and notice of the hearing 

thereof shall be served on the surety not later than 10 days before the time specified 

for the hearing.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8). There is nothing in the record 

that indicates that the Board filed or served Bail Agent with a motion for sanctions 

and notice of the hearing 10 days prior to the hearing. Rather, the notation in the 

margin of the Board’s objection to the motion to set aside merely reserved the right 

to file a motion for sanctions if Bail Agent provided supplemental documentation. No 

such motion is set forth in the record, and the Board’s oral motion for sanctions is 

insufficient pursuant to the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8). 

Moreover, the sanction imposed by the trial court that prohibited Bail Agent

from becoming surety on any future bonds in Jones County until the judgment was 

satisfied exceeded the scope of the trial court’s authority. It is uncontroverted that a 

court cannot exercise authority not specifically prescribed in the bond forfeiture 

statutes. See State v. Knight, 255 N.C. App. 802, 806, 805 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2017) 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

(emphasizing that the trial court’s authority over bond forfeiture must be exercised 

in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions). 

Allowable sanctions for failure to attach sufficient documentation to a motion 

to set aside are prescribed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d)(8). Specifically, that 

section states that “sanctions shall be imposed as follows: . . . (ii) fifty percent (50%) 

of the bond amount for failure to attach the required documentation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 15A-544.5(d)(8); see also Cortez, 229 N.C. App. at 269, 747 S.E.2d at 361 (“[I]f a 

surety fails to attach the required documentation to a motion to set aside . . . a court 

is now authorized and required by the General Assembly under subdivision (d)(8) to 

impose a sanction equal to fifty percent of the bond’s amount if the court decides to 

impose monetary sanctions against a surety for such a failure.”). Prohibiting Bail 

Agent from writing bonds until the judgment for sanctions was satisfied went beyond 

the trial court’s authority as set forth in Section 15A-544.5, and therefore, the trial 

court abused its discretion. 

In addition, the trial court assessed sanctions because the motion to set aside 

“contained insufficient documentation.” Relying on State v. Isaacs, 261 N.C. App. 

696, 821 S.E.2d 300 (2018), the trial court determined that “the Board is entitled, at 

the Court’s discretion, to be reimbursed for attorney fees and expenses as a sanction 

to remedy any prejudice caused by the Surety’s failure to attach sufficient evidence 

to its” motion to set aside the forfeiture. 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

An ACIS printout is a copy of an official court record. See State v. Waycaster, 

___ N.C. ___, ___, 846 S.E.2d 688, 695 (2020) (“[T]he ACIS database serves as a court 

record—albeit an electronic one.”).2 Here, Bail Agent attached an electronic copy of 

a court record which satisfies N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(b)(4) to his motion to set 

aside. The trial court failed to make findings of fact concerning why the motion to set 

aside contained insufficient documentation when an official court record was 

attached. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it sanctioned Bail Agent 

for failure to attach sufficient documentation to the motion to set aside. 

Conclusion

For the reasons provided herein, the trial court abused its discretion when it 

sanctioned Bail Agent, and we reverse.

REVERSED.

Judges ARROWOOD and COLLINS concur.

 

2 ACIS is “maintained by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts [and] provides 

the superior and district courts in North Carolina with accurate and timely criminal and infraction 

case information.” ACIS Citizen’s Guide, NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 5 

(2017), 

https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/ACIS_Inquiry_RG.pdf?n5DVrlE3ODObw13

mPuMpNs0uEecpTaBN. The system is used by courts to “create indexes, calendars and docket cases, 

notify individuals of case status and exceptions, and control the reporting of dispositions and final 

judgments for criminal cases.” ACIS Criminal Inquiry Module User Manual, NORTH CAROLINA 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 8 (2010), 

https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/Criminal-InquiryManual.pdf?fu6MNou7dLhkSYKnJ99hVDL4h2IjbzLh. 

The primary users of the ACIS criminal module, are clerks of court, district attorneys, and 

magistrates. Id. at 6. The system is designed to “provide[] a complete history of all case related 

activity, and ultimately, disposition data.” Id. at 8. 
STATE V. DOSS

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -