In com p l i ance wit h R ul es 30 (b)(2) and (d)(2) of t he T enness ee R ul es o f A p p el l at e P roce d ure, t he p art i es have 1
st y l ed t hei r pl ead i ngs b efo re t hi s co urt “ Stat e o f T enness ee v. E l i

jah D

. T rui t t ” and have si m p l y ad d ed t he nam e o f t he ap p el l ant and i t s st at us b efo re t hi s co urt

. R ul e 3 0 of t he T enness ee R ul es of A p p el l at e P roce d ure pro vi d es t hat pa p ers a d d re sse d to this c o u rt sh o u ld c o n ta in a c a p tio n s e tti n g fo rth th e title o f th e c a se a s it a p p e a re d in th e tr ia l c o u rt. I n this cas e, do cumen t s r el at i ng t o t he bai l bo nd forf ei t ur e procee di ng s wer e s t y l ed i n a ccor dance wi t h t he un derl y i ng cr i mi nal c a se . N o tw ithsta n d ing the style o f the c a se in t h e tria l c o u rt a n d b e c a u se A B B o n d ing C o m p a n y, In c ., ra the r th a n T ru itt , is the a p p e llan t i n the se p ro c e e d ing s, w e ha v e styled this o p inio n “In re : A B B o n d ing C o m p a n y, In c .” 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE Jul y 21, 200 4 S es sio n IN RE: AB BO NDING COM PANY, INC. 1
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty Nos. 99-D- 2608, 99-D-2942, 2002- A-43, 2002-B-619, 2002- B-1204 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02813-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 10, 2004

The a p p e ll a n t, A B B o n d in g Co mp a n y , I n c . , ap p e a ls th e o r d e r o f th e D a v id s o n Co u n ty

Crim in al Cou rt de nying its “ Mo tio n to Re mit F or fe itu re s” in the c a se of c ri min a l de fe nd a nt E lij ah D . T ru itt

. Be cause the re cord f

ails to ref lect the entry of final judgme nts of forfeiture , the appeal is dismis sed.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; A ppe al i s D ism iss e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., deli v er ed t h e o p inion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Mark A. B aug h and He len F. Be an (on appea l), and David Vincent (at trial), Nashville, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, AB Bonding Company , I nc. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th T . Ry a n, As sis ta nt Attorne y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and D an Hamm, Assist ant District At t orney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
Th e ins ta nt c a se aro se fr om the c ri min a l pr os e c uti on of thede fe nd a nt, El ijah D . T ru itt

. Be tween J une 11, 1999, and November 17, 2001, the appellant, A.B

. Bonding Company , I n c., un de rw ro te fi ve app e aranc e bo nd s o n T ru itt ’s be hal f, whi ch b on ds tot a le d $ 82 ,5 00 . T ru ittT he reco rd ref l ect s d i scr ep anci es as t o t he d at e T rui t t was app rehend ed

. T h e o w n e r o f A.B

. B o nd i ng 2 Compan y , I n c. , t es t i f

i ed at t h e h ea r i n g on t h e mot i on t o r emi t for fei t u r es t h at T r u i t t w as a ppr eh en ded on A u g u s t 11, 2003; ho wever, he s ub sequentl y t est i f i e d that T rui t t was app rehend ed “ som et i m e [i n t he] f i rs t pa rt of Se p t em b er. ” T he appe l l an t ’ s mot i on t o r emi t for fei t u r es c l ai ms t h at T r u i t t w as a ppr eh en ded on Se pt embe r 10, 2003.

T he appel l ant not es i n i t s bri ef t hat John H

. O t ey , Jr

. , was mi s t ake nl y r ef er r ed t o i n t he hea r i ng t r ans cr i pt as 3 “M r. O d ie .” -2- su bs e qu e ntl y

faile d to app e ar at sc he du le d c ou rt he ari ng s, re su lti ng in the fo rf e itu reof thebond s. On Marc h 15, 2002, the trial court issued three w rits of scire fac ias for f orfe ited bonds in the amounts of $17,000, $12,500, and $30,000. Thewrits wer e served upon the appe llant on March 21, 2002. On May

8, 2002, the t rial court issued a writ of scire f acia s for a forf eited bond in the amount of $4,000. The w rit was served upon the ap p el lant on May 29, 2002. On J uly

17, 2002, the trial court issued a

writ of scirefac ias for a forf eited bond in the amount of $19,000, w hich writ wa s serve d upon the appe llant on J uly 18, 2002.
Acc ording to the rec ord, no further a ction was take n in this case unti l the appellant paid the full amount of th e bonds on Mar ch 18, 2003. Appr ox imately six months later, the appe llant appre hended Truitt and surrender ed him into custody at t he Davidson CountyJ ail. There afte r, the 2 appellant f

iled a “Motion to Remit F orfe itures,” arg uing that relief was wa rranted under

Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-11-204 be cause the appe llant ha d surre ndere d Truitt into custody . The trial court subseque ntly

held a he aring on the appe llant’s motion.
At the hea

ring , J ohn H. Otey , J r., the owner of A.B . Bonding Company , I nc., testified that 3 his employ ee William Garre tt wrote the bonds in the ins tant case . Otey claimed that he did not learn of the forf eiture of the bonds until “the

. . . people doing the books informed me that the balanc e that [t he court] had . . . and the balanc e that I had on the books was diffe rent, I found out that there had been a forf eit [i n the amount of $30,000] taken out of the . . . f orfe it account that the court holds.” He subsequently learned that Truitt’s remaining bonds had bee n forf eited. Otey

paid $82,500, the fu ll amou nt o f the bo nd s. Therea ft er , Otey

hired bounty

hunter Gr eg ory

Sanford to locate Truitt. He a lso offer ed a $5,000 rew ard f

or Truitt’s ca

pture. Otey testified that in a ddition to paying the full amount of the forf eiture, he also paid S anfor d a ten pe rce nt bounty fee of $8,500 and $2,000 in e x penses incur red i n ap p r e h e n d i n g T ru i t t

. M o r e o v e r , h e s t i l l o w e d t h e $ 5 , 0 0 0 r e w ar d m o n e y. Gre g ory Sanford, the bounty

hunter hire d to locate Tr

uitt, testi fied that he owne d Tenne ssee Recove ry Group, a bail enfor ceme nt company . Sanford wa s contac ted by Wil lia m Garr ett about Truitt’s failure to appea

r. Upon investigation, Sanf ord learned that Truitt was a “ dope addic t” who

“ fr e qu e nt[e d] the pr oje c ts” in Na sh vil le

. Sa nf or d an d his p art ne r w e nt t o th e ho me of Tr uitt’ s p are nts in N ashville; howeve r, Truitt’s fathe r ref used to a llow the m to enter. Sanfor d contac ted the Metro Pol ice, w ho arrive d th e re a ft e r andse arc he d th e ho us e . T ru itt wa s n ot f

ou ndins idehis pa

re nts ’ house.-3-

Sanford subseque ntly

learned that Truitt had a g irlfriend in Michig an. Truitt contac ted the Te nn e sse e B ur e au o f Inv e sti g a tio n ( TB I ), wh o in tur n co nta c te d the U. S. Mars ha ll’ s Ta sk F or c e in Flint, Michig an. The task fo rce proce eded to the a ddress provide d by Sanford and sear ched the home of Truitt’s g irlfriend. Truitt w as not the re. Howeve r, Truitt’s g irlfriend informed them that she had r ece ntly

presse d char g es ag ainst Truitt for “be ating her up one afte rnoon” and Truitt had fled to F lorida . Sanf

or d r e la y e d th is i nf

ormatio n to Ot e y , andthe tw o men a g re e d th a t Sa nf or d w ou ld g o to F lorida

to atte mpt

to l oc a te Tr

uitt.
I n F lorida , Sa nf

or d le arn e d th a t T ru itt

ha d r e turne d to Na sh vil le prior to S a nf or d’ s a rriva l. Sanford c ontacted the TBI in Nash v i l l e an d as ked that Truitt be f eatur ed on a te levision news broadc ast featuring wanted c riminals. During the broa dcast, the TB I offe red a $ 1 ,000 rew ard f or information leading to the arr est of Truitt. Sever al months later, an i n fo rm ant reported that he rec alled see ing T ruitt. Sanford met with the informant, who di sclosed Truitt’s location. Sanford and three TBI ag ents subsequently

appre hended T ruitt at the disclosed location.
At the conc lusion of the testimony , the t rial court took the matter under advisement. On Oc tob e r 2 1, 20 03 , the tria l c ou rt e nte re d a n o rd e r d e nying theapp e llant’ s mo tio n to re mit fo rf e itu re s, finding , “[w]hi le it may

be held that courts reta in thediscretion to exonerate sureties in matters suc h as these, to do so i n ev er y case might ope n the floodg ates for future a ctivity

along these lines and wea ken the structure of the sy stem which g overns bond issues.” Howeve r, the trial co u rt gra nted remittance of $1 5 , 4 7 9

. 2 0, the amount expended by the appe llant in apprehe nding T ruitt. The appellant now a

ppeals the tria l court’s de nial of his motion, arg uing that (1) the trial court’ s ref usal to gr ant full remittance was ag ainst logic and rea soning and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion on the basis of a purported conf lict in the law reg arding remittanceof final fo rf e itu re s. II. Ana lys is
The forfeiture of bail bonds is g overne d by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-11-201 throug h 40-11-215. Spec ifically , Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-11- 201(a) (2003) pr ovides that a trial court may enter a conditional judgme nt of forf eiture ag ainst a defe ndant and his sure ties if the def endant f ails to appea

r in court in ac cordance w ith a bail bond agr eeme nt. Upon entry of a c on dit ion a l ju dg me nt, the tria l cou rt mus t issu e a writ of sc ir e fa c ia s re qu iring the de fe nd a nt andhis sureties to show ca

use why the judg ment should not become fina l. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 11-202 (2003). B efor e entry of a final judgme nt of forf eiture, the trial court must aff ord the de fendant and his sureties a he aring prior to final forfeiture . I n re: Paul’s B onding Co., Inc., 62 S.W.3d 187, 193 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing I ndemnity I ns. Co. of North Americ a v. Bla ckwe ll, 653 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)). There afte r, t he trial court may enter judgme nt ag ainst the defe ndant and his sureties for the amount of the ba il bond and the costs of the proceeding s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 11-139(b) (2003). A surety may be exonerated from forf

eiture by its surr ender of the defe ndant to the court at any time beforepayment of the judg ment of for feiture pursuant to Tenne ssee C o d eA n n o ta te d sectionSe e S t a t e v . W i l l i a m Br e t Rob i n s on , No. E19 99

- 00 95 0- CCA- R3- CD, 20 00 W L 12 11 31 6, a t * 2 ( T e n n . Cr i m. 4 App. a t K n ox v i l l e, Aug

. 28, 2000) ( def i n i n g “ r ec og n i za n ce ” wi t h i n t h e mea n i n g of T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on 4 0

- 1 1

- 2 0 4 (a))

.

T he wri t s o f

s ci re faci as i ss ued i n t he i nst ant case s t at ed t he fo l l o wi ng: 5

T o the S h e riff o f D a v id so n C o u n ty:

Y ou ar e h er eby comm anded i n t he name of t he St at e t o not i f

y AB [ , ] E l i

j ah D

. T rui t t , III, 1 4 0 3 4 6 in t he C ri m i nal S ess i o ns C o urt o f D avi d son C o unt y , fo r t he sum o f [r espec t i ve b o nd am o unt s] and co st s o n a Fo rf ei t ure bo nd , i n t he ab o ve s t y l ed cas e, o n t he [ r es pect i ve dat es of forf ei t ur e] an d t he s ame wi l l be made f i nal
u n le ss yo u a p p e a r a t sa id C o u rt w ithin 1 8 0 d a ys a n d sh o w c a u se to the c o n tra ry.
T h e wr i t s f ai l ed t o s t at e wh et h er c on di t i on al j u dg men t s of for fei t u r e h ad bee n e n t er ed. -4- 40-11-203( a) ( 2003). Howe ver, onc e a forf eiture has been paid, the surety must seek re lief pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-11-204(a ) (2003) , which provide s that a court

may rec eive, he ar and determine the pe t i t ion of any person who claims relie f i s merited on any rec og nizances [or bail bonds ] 4 fo rf ei ted, and so lesse n or absolutely remit the same, le ss a cler k’s commission . . . , and do all and everything therein as they shall deem just and rig ht, and consistent with the welfa re of the state, as we ll as the per son praying suc h relief . This power sha ll ex tend to the re lief of those ag ain s t whom final judg ment has bee n enter ed whe ther or no t th e jud g me nt h a s been paid, a s w e ll a s to there lie f o f tho se a g a ins t w ho m pr oc e e din g s a rein p ro g re ss. See also In re: Spee dy

Release Bail Bond, No. W2000-02260- CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL1549400 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 23, 2002). Up on re vie w, it is app are nt that there c or d b e fo rethi s c ou rt do e s n ot i nc lud e thedo c ume nts ne c e s s ar y f

o r ap p e ll a te r e v ie w o n th e me r it s . Sp e c if ic a ll y , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t inc lude the conditional judgme nts of forf eiture, and we a

re una ble to determine from the writs of s cire fac ias inc lud e d in the re c or d wh e n, or if, c on dition a l jud g me nts we ree nte re d. Th e re c or d is a lso de vo id 5 of evide nce that the appellant wa s aff orded a hearing prior to final forf eiture. Most importantly , the record be fore this court does not include fina l judgments of f orfe iture or other e ntries of moneta ry judgme nt ag ainst the appellant. The instant appea l purports to be one as of rig h t p u r s u a n t to Ru le 3 o f th e T e n n e s s e e Ru le s o f A p p e ll a te Pr o c e d u r e . H o w e v er, Rule 3 provides for

appea ls as of rig ht f

rom final judg ments. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. The orde r fr om which the appe llant seeks re lief denie s the appe llant’s motion for remittance of for feiture costs. This court has pre viouslyconclude d that such an order mere ly denying exoneration is not equivalent to a final judgme nt. State v. H owar d C. Covington, No. W2001-01575-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1592704, at-5-

*2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, J uly 16, 2002). I n Covington, as in thi s case , the re cord did not inc lud e fi na l ju dg me nts of fo rf e itu re . We areun ableto r e vie w t he c a se wi tho ut s uc h ju dg me nts be fo reus . A c c or din g ly , w e mus t di smi ss the app e a l.
III. Conclusi on Be cause the re cord f

ails to r ef l ec t t h at t his case is prope rly befor e this court as a

rig htful appea l, the appea l is dism issed.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE