### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 10, 200 9 S es sio n

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v

. A N TO N I D A N TAHI X IN R E: C ARLOS B OND ING, LLC

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 16329 Robert

Crigler , Judge

No. M2008- 01056-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 31, 2009

The Appe llant, Carlos Bonding , L L C, appea ls the Be dford C o unty Circuit Court’s order g ranting pa rt ia l e xone ratio n f

ro m th e fi na l fo rf

e iture of a $2 0, 00 0 bo nd and or de ri ngthe c omp any

to f or fe it $6,000 of the bond. On appea l, Ca rlos Bondingargues that the trial c ourt, by ref ere ncing the conc ept of treble damag es, abuse d its discretion in its m ethod of c alculatingthe amount t o be for feited. Be cause the trial court m u s t b e af forde d broad discr etion in a bail forf eiture pr ocee ding, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Rob e rt Marl ow , Sh e lby

vil le , f or the a pp e lla nt, Carl os B on din g , L L C.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; L a c y

Wilb e r, As sis tant Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l; Charles Cra

wford, D istrict A ttorney Gene ral; and Michae l D . Randles, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound I n the B edfor d County Circuit Court, Carlos Bonding
, L L C, w as surety on a bail bond for

the De fe nd ant, An toni D anta Hi x, in t he a mou nt o f $ 20 ,0 00 . T he De fe nd ant, wh o w a s c ha rg e d w ith po sse ssi on

of a sc he du le I I c on tr oll e d sub sta nc e fo r re sa le , fa ile d to app e ar fo r a sc he du le d co ur t date on Aug ust 20, 2007. A conditional forfe iture wa s taken against the De fenda nt on that date, and a capia s was issued for

his arre st. A scire facias was ser ved on Carlos B onding on Aug ust 22, 2007,

re qu ir ingCarl os B on din g and the De fe nd ant to a pp e ar in c ourt on F e br

ua ry 21 , 20 08 , to sh owc a

us e for not mak i ng that judgme nt final. On F ebrua ry 21, neither Car los Bonding nor the De fenda ntT h e t r i al c ou r t n ot ed t h at , on t h e dat e of t h e f i nal f or f ei t u r e, t h e St at e v i g or ou s l y a r g u ed f or s u s pen s i on of 1

Car l os B on di n g , bu t t h e t r i al c ou r t r ef u s ed t o do s o.

-2- appea red a s directe d, and the tria l court dec lare d a fina l forfe iture of the bond. On M arc h 9, 2008, 1 Carlos Bondingappre hended the Def endant, who w as take n into th e cu s t o d y of the Rutherf ord County Sheriff’ s Offic e. Carlos B onding the n petitioned the t ri al co u rt for r elief f rom the final forf eiture.

A h e ari ngwa s hel d on Apr il 2, 200 8. Ac c or din g to the te sti mony of De te c tiv e Jaso n M a thi s of the Rutherf

ord County

Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment, Nar cotics Divi sion, J uan C arlos Alvarado of Ca rlos B on din g c on ta c te d h im o n F e br ua ry 29 , 2 00 8, c on c e rn ing the De fe nd ant. Mr

. Al va ra do a dv ise d D e t. Mathis that he was looking for t he Defenda nt, an indi vidual he had posted bond for; that he be lieved the Def endant to be a

fairly s i z ea b l e d rug deale r; that he ha d a location where the Def endant wa s staying; a nd that he had r eason to be lieve the De fenda nt ha d a larg e amount of narc otics, money , and firea rms at this residenc e. Detec tive Mathis met with Mr. Alvarado t o discuss the appre hension of the Def endant.

On Marc h 9, 2008, Det. Mathis re ceive d word that Mr. A lvarado had made entry into the Def endant’ s residenc e and that, after taking the Defenda nt into custody , Mr. Alvar ado had obse rved larg e amounts of na

rcotics, money , and fire arms in the re sidence . Detec tive Mathis proce eded to the

sc e ne , wh e re the De fe nd ant and his g ir lf ri e nd we re in ha

nd c uf fs

. F oll ow inghis arr iva l, D e t. M a thi s also saw dr

ug s, g uns, and money

inside the home. Ther eaf ter, ne w cha

rg es we re f

iled ag ainst the Def endant in Rutherf

ord County . The De fenda nt was transfer

red to the Ruther ford County J ail for booking pr ocedur es. Detec tive Mathis testified that Mr. Alvar ado would not have been pe rmitted to r e mov e the De fe nd ant f ro m Ru the rf

or d Co un ty

to B e df or d Co un ty

to s ur re nd e r h im.

On cr oss-exami n at ion, the State inquired of De t. Mathis if he had e ver instruc ted Mr. A l v ar a d o n o tt o a

p p r e h e n d t h e D e f e n d an tb a s e d

u p o nan o n g o i n g i nv e s t i g a t i o ni nR u t h e r f o r d C o u n t y. Detec tive Mathis replied in the ne g ative.

Mr. J uan Carlos Alva

rado te stified that he, alongwith his wife, wer e th e p ri ncipal owne rs of Carlos B onding. Mr . Alvara do confirme d that h e made bond f or the De fenda

nt and that the Def endant subseque ntly

failed to a

ppear in court. Mr. Alva

rado h ad p reviously

lear ned that the Def endant ha d been involved in a high- speed chase with of fice rs of the local Dr

ug Task F orce and had aba ndoned his burning ve hicle in a c orn field with his wife a nd children inside. Af

ter Mr. Al va ra do re c e ive d th is i nf

or ma tio n, he did

no t be lie ve tha

t th e De fe nd ant w ou ld a

pp e ar i n c ourt

.
When asked what s t ep s h e t ook to locate the D efe ndant af ter he failed to a

ppear , Mr. Alvara do s t at ed t h at h e attempted to contact the De fenda nt by telephone to no avail and that he

c o n ta c te d th e “ c o

- s ig n e r

o r th e c o

- p r in c ip l e ” o nth e b o n d : t h e D e f e n d an t’ s mo th e r , Ca

r o l D e n is e H ix. Acc ording to Mr

. Alvara do, Ms. H ix had been an employ ee of Ty son Foods for over twe lve y ear s and had ple dg ed her

home as c ollatera l ag ainst the $20,000 bond.I n Car l os B on di n g ’ s mot i on t o s et a s i de t h e f i nal forf ei t u r e, i t i s s t at ed t h at t h e D ef en dan t w as l oca t ed on 2

O ct ober 12, 2007, a t B at t l e Cr ee k Apar t men t N o. 25.

-3- Mr. Alava

rdo wa s awa

re that the Def

endant was in Ruther ford County on Aug ust 20, the day he fa iled to a

ppear in c ourt, having rec eived this infor mation from Dete ctive Tim L ane, D irec tor of the local Dr

ug Task Force in Murfre esboro. Ac cordingto Mr. Alvara do, Detec tive L ane “ sug g ested to involve a new a g ency

in order to build a c ase or g et him with drugs or g uns or money

or whatever he had the day

of the a rre st.”
Although he knew the Def endant’ s wher eabouts “ for a long pe riod of time[,] ” the De fenda nt was diff i cu l t t o apprehend be cause he moved a round fr om house to house and owne d sever al dif fe re nt v e hic le s. Mr . A lva

ra do state d th a t he ha d tr ie d to loc a te the De fe nd ant thr ou g ho ut t he fi rs t six mo nth s a ft e r h e fa ile d to a pp e ar, c la imi ngthat “ [w]e ne ve r have ne g le c te d a ca se ” and that hi s “tra ck re cord” in the jurisdiction since 1991 ref lected this.

Mr. Alvar ado ac knowledg ed that a f inal forf eiture w as ente red in F ebrua ry 2008. Whil e he was not idle bef

ore F ebrua

ry 2008, he did “ kick [i t] into ove rdrive” once he rec eived notice of the final for feiture . Acc ording to Mr. Alvara do, the Def endant was orig inally located on Dec ember 24 in a Rutherfor d County

apar tment c omplex
, Battlegr ound Apar tments. Whil e unable to appr ehend

2 the Def endant at this l ocation, Mr. Alva rado c on d ucted surve illance of the apa rtment complex on

a we ekly basis throug hout J anuar

y

. During his surveillance of the De fenda nt, it appear ed to Mr. Alvara do that the Def endant wa s continuing to de al in drug s. Whi le he did not ac t u al l y s ee the exchang e of dr ug s, Mr. Alvara do ob se rv e d a

“ hig h tr a ff

ic ” are a wi th p e op le a lw ay s c omi ngand g oin g fr om t

he De fe nd ant’ s a

pa rtme nt. When asked why

he did not take the D efe ndant into custody at this tim e, Mr. Alva

rado r esponded that th e Defen dan t “woul d h a ve so ldi e rs , o the r p e op le aro un d h im” makin g the sit uatio n “ se milethal.” Mr. Alvara do g ave the information he g ather ed aga inst the Defenda nt to Det. Mathis and De t. T on y

Ha ll “ in o rd e r f

or the m to bu ild

a be tte r c a se a g ain st [ th e Defendant]. ” On c ro ssexamination, Mr. Alvarado c larified that he could not definitely say that it was the De fenda nt he saw participating in a dr

ug deal in the pa

rking lot.

Bas edu p o nn ew i n fo rm at i o nfr o m an i n fo rm an t , M r. Al vara do beg an conduc ting surve illance

on a ne w loc a tio n, Che lse y Pla c e Ap artme nts , Ap artme nt K- 1. Th is surv e ill anc e la ste d a bo ut a

wee k. At approximately 4 : 3 0 a. m

. o n Marc h 9, 2008, Mr. Alvar ado ar rived at the location. He observe d the Defenda

nt and his g irlfriend le ave the residenc e. Wanting to make sure no one else wa s i n s i d e t h e a

p art m e n t , h e d i d

n o tt r y t o s t o p t h e c o u

p l e b e c a u s e h e kn e w t h e y w o u l d

r e tu r ns h o rt l y.

Al so wh ile the c ou

ple wa s awa

y fr om the a

pa rtme nt, Mr . A lva

ra do c on ta c te d D e t. T on y

Ha ll of the Ruthe rf

or d Co un ty

She ri ff ’s of fi c e and inf or me d D e t. H a ll that he h a d s e e n th e De fe nd a nt. Ac c or din g to M r. Al va

ra do , D e t. H a ll i ns tr

uc te d h im that he wo uld

have of fi c e rs on sta nd by and that, if Mr. Alvar ado obser

ved illeg al ac tiviti es in the apa rtment, the off

icer s would come if c alled for assistance

.-4-

Around 11:00 a.m., Mr

. Alvara do, with the assistance of anothe r bail bondsman, g ained e ntry into th e a p artm e n t. M r

. A lv ar a d o s u b d u e d th e D e f

e n d an t an d p la c e d h im in h an dcuff s. The Def endant’ s g irlfriend w as also subdued a nd h an d cu ffed. Mr. Alvar ado conta cted De t. Hall and inf or me d him that he ha d dis c ov e re d dr ug s, we a po ns , and a larg e su m of

mon e y ins ide the a

pa rtme nt. Mr. Alvar ado deta ined the De fenda nt until officers a

rrived on the scene and took over the inv e sti g a tio n. Ruthe rf

or d Co un ty

of fi c e rs arr e ste d th e De fe nd a nt.

The trial c ourt then asked Mr. Alvarado to clar ify some statements. Mr. Alva rado c onfirmed that D e t. L ane tol d h im that the De fe nd ant wa s stay ing in the Che lse y Pla c e Ap artme nts in Aug us t 2007. When asked why

he could not locate the De fenda nt a t that time, Mr. Alvara do responde d that there wer e almost 400 units in the complex and that he did not have a specific apar

tment number. M r

. A lv ar a d o c o n f

ir me d th a t t h e D e f e n d an t w a s u lt im a te ly

f o u n d in th is a p artm e n t c o mp le x.

Mr. Alvar ado ac knowledg ed that he kne w t hat t he Defenda nt failed to appe ar in c ourt. When Mr. Alvar ado wa s asked why he did no t ap p ear

in court on F ebrua

ry 21, 2008, as orde red, Mr

. Alvara do replied that he “thoug ht the matter was taken car e of.” Mr. Alvar ado said that he believed the matter w as take n ca re o f b ec au s e he had a dr y era se boar d in his office w ith the names of defe ndants who failed to a ppear and that the Def

endant must have been “over looked. ” H e t hen stated that he thoug ht Det. Cruise wa s working on it due to the high- speed c ar c hase.

Mr. Al vara do also admitted that he ha d filed motions for extensions of tim e on bond forf eitures be fore and that he ha d never been de nied a reque st for an e x tension of time. Mr. Alvara do maintained that De t. Cruise wanted him to wait “until he g ot it set up him self with the Rutherford County

Task F orce .”

On re cross-e x amination, Mr. Alvara do testified that Det. Cruise told him not to pick up the Def endant.

The State then c alled De t. Cruise. He testified that he had a conver sation with Mr. Alvara do sometime during the pre vious y ear about t he De fenda nt and that Mr. Alvar ado had a n informant who could tell Det. Cruise of the Def endant’ s wh er ea bouts. Accor ding to De t. Cruise, Mr. Alvara do believed the Def

endant to be in Chelsey

Place Apa

rtments in Murfre esboro, but he did not know what spec ific apa

rtment. Dete ctive Cruise instructe d Mr. Alvar ado to have his informant conta ct him. The informant ne ver c ontacted him.

Detec tive Cruise ag ain spoke with Mr. Alva rado sometime a fter F ebrua ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 8

. Mr. Alvara do claimed that the inf orman t had unsucc essfully tried to contac t Det. Cruise. De tective Crui s e f o u n d t h i s u n l i k e l y

a s h e w a s “ n o tv e r

y h ar d t o g e ti nt o u c h w i t h

. ” F i n a l l y , D e t

. C r uis e
a ff ir me d th a t he ne ve r i ns tr

uc te d M r. Al va

ra do to f or e g o p ic kin g up the De fe nd ant so the y c ou ld build a case ag ainst him in Rutherfor d County

. Following the conc lusion of proof, the tria l court g rante d partial e x oneration from the final fo rf e iture a mou

nt o f $ 20 ,0 00 . T he c ourt

no te d th a t Mr . A lva

ra do te sti fi e d he did no t ke e p up wi thT en ne ssee C o d e A nn o t ated sec t i o n 4 0

- 1 1

- 3 1 6 (a), i n p erti ne nt p art, p ro vid es for p rem i um s as f o l l o w s: 3

P ro fes s io n a l b o n d sm e n a n d a g e n ts o f i n su ra n c e c o m p a n ie s m a k ing a p p e a ra n c e b o n d s o f a cri m i nal nat ure s hal l not ass ess m o re th a n te n p e rcent (10 % ) of t he am o unt of t he f

ace value o f

t he bon d f or pr emi u m f

ee a n d r el at ed ch ar g e or c h ar g es , a nd t h e pr emi u m f ee a n d r el at ed ch ar g e or ch ar g es s h al l n ot be a s s es s ed bu t on e ( 1) t i me du r i n g t h e f i r s t t we l v e ( 12) mon t h s of t h e pen den cy of the c h a rg e o r c h a rg e s a n d ind ic tm e n t o r in d ic tm e n ts in e ithe r th e trial c o u rt o r a n y lo w e r c o u rt.

-5- the Def endant a nd, th er ef o re , s h o uld not have any

“complaints” w ith the court’s ruling . The trial court found that the administration of justice re quired C arlos B onding to pa y some portion of the final for fei t u re b ec ause othe rwise “ [t ]here would be c erta inly the temptation on occa sion for a bondsman to be in ca

hoots with the defenda

nt and just let them stay

out and surre nder the m at the last minute.” The tria l court also stated that it was “skeptica l” about Mr. Alva rado’ s rea sons for not being able to ca

pture the D efe ndant in the C helsey Place Apartments prior to the final forfeiture . Mr. Alvara do had re ceive d information that the De fenda nt was in this complex in Aug ust 2007. The court found, “ The trouble is y ou didn’t st ar t b ef o re the final for feiture was take n.” Howe ver, the court we nt on to state that, on the other hand, Carlos Bonding “did catc h him pr etty quick afte r the fi na l. .

. . I t ki nd

of sh ow s that y ou

mig ht h a ve be e n a

ble to c a tc h h im a

lit tle bit e arl ie r t ha n th a t, too.” Afte r making these finding s, the trial cour t require d Carlos Bondingto pay $6,000:

Gi ve n th e sp e e d w ith wh ic h y ou c a ught him , I thi nk

may be the ri g ht t

hin g to do is— the re is a 10 pe rc e nt pr e mium. Just the c on c e pt o f t re ble dama g e s c ome s in 3 to it. I think for lack of a better way to fig ure it, I

think the judgment should be f or $ 6 0 0 0 g i v e nt h a tyo ug o th i m t h a tqu i c k l y.
Carlos Bondingtimely

appea led.

Ana lys is On appea l, Ca

rlos Bonding argues that the trial court a bused its discretion in deter mining the

a mou nt of the bo nd to be pa id. Spe c if ic a lly
, Carl os B on din g c on te nd s that “ [t]o im po se a pe na lty in the amount of $6,00 0 , b as ed u pon the conc ept of tre ble damag es and the maxi mum bond premium, is an abuse of discre tion.”

The for feiture of bail bonds is g overne d by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-11-201 thr ou g h 4 0- 11 -2 15 . Sp e c if ic a lly , T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d se c tio n 40 -1 1- 20 1( a ) pr ov ide s th a t a trial court may

enter a conditional judg ment of for feiture ag ainst a def endant a nd his sureties if the defe ndant fa ils to appear in c ourt in acc o rd an ce wi th a bail bond ag ree ment. Upon entry of a conditional judgme nt, the trial court must issue a wr it of scire facias re qu ir ing the de fe nd ant a nd his sureties to show cause why the judgme nt should not be come final. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 11-202. B e fo re en tr y of a

fi na l ju dg me nt o f f

or fe iture , th e tr ia l c ourt

mus t a ff or d th e de fe nd ant a

nd his sureties a hear ing. I

n re Paul’s B o n d i n g C o ., I nc., 62 S.W.3d 187, 193 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (ci t i n g I n dem. I ns. Co. of N. Am. v. Bla ckwe ll, 653 S.W .2d 262, 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983))

. There afte r, the trial c ourt 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 pr ocee dings. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-11- 139(b).-6-

A surety may be exonerated from f

orfe iture by

its surrender of t he defenda nt to the cour

t at any time before pay

ment of the judg ment o f

f o r f e it u r e pursuant to Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-11-203( a). Trial courts have the discretion to relieve bail bondsmen or ot her sureties from the liability of bail and a

re a uthorized to hold hearing s to determine whether the forf eiture should be

e xcu se d, pa

rt ia lly or a bs olute ly

. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 11 -2 03 pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s:
(a) Af t er t h e liability

of the ba il bondsman or surety has bec ome fixed by forf eiture, a nd befor e pay

ment, the bail bondsman or surety may be exonerated from the liability

by the surre nder of

the def endant a nd the pay

ment of all costs; but may be exonerated from c osts also if, in the opinion of the court, the ba il bondsman or

sure ty ha s b e e n in

no fa ult

. (b) I t is left t o the s ound discretion of the court whether the bail bondsman or surety shall be re lieved fr om the liability of bail to any

and to what e x tent.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 11-203. The discretion conferr ed is broad a nd compre hensive, e mpowering the cour t to decide e ach c ase a ccor ding to its conce ption of justice. Bla ck v. State, 290 S.W. 20, 21 (Tenn. 1927)

.
Th e tr ia l c ourt

fo un d th a t Car los B on din g wa s ent itl e d to some e xone ratio n f or the e ff or ts i t made in the r eturn of the Def endant, but that full ex oneration was inappropr iate bec ause Car los Bonding“mi ght have be en able to catch him a little bit ear lier” a nd failed to a

ppear to reque st an extension of tim e. The rec ord supports these f indings.

T h e D e f e n d an t f a il e d to a

p p e ar f o r a s c h e d

u le d c o u rt d a te o n A u g u s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , and absconde d. Conditi onal forf eiture of the bond was taken on that same date and, ther eaf ter, a sc ire fac ias was issued. Carlos Bondingrec eived notice of the c onditional forfe iture and scire facias on Aug ust 22, 2007. On Februa ry 21, 2008, Carlos Bonding and the De fenda nt failed to appe ar, a

nd the tr ia l c ourt

e nte re d a fi na l or de r o f f

or fe iture

. Carl os B on din g wa s no t pr e se nt and did no t r e qu e st

an e xten sio n o f t ime e ve n th ou g h Ca rl os B on din g wa s f

a mil iar w iththe pr oc e ss. Th ro ug h th e e ff or ts of Carlos B onding the Def endant was arr ested on Marc h 9, 2008, only sevente en day s after

the final forf eiture w as take n. I n Aug ust 2007, Det. L ane ha d notified Mr. Alvar ado that the De fenda nt was residing in the Chelsey Place Apar tments in Murf

ree sboro. Howe ver, Mr . Alvara do admitted that he thoug ht the matter wa s taken care of and failed to keep up with the Defe ndant. The D efe ndant

was e ventually

found by Mr. Alvar ado in this apartment c omplex

.
The trial c ourt expressed disbelief whe n Mr. Alvar ado explained his rea sons for not being able to locate the De fenda nt sooner. The court a lso noted that, afte r t he final forf eiture was taken, Carlos Bondingdid fi n d the Def endant “ pretty

quick[.] ” The trial court noted its discre tionary authority under the statute: “I t is left t o the s ound discretion of the court whether the bail bondsman

or sure ty shall be re lieved fr om the liability of bail to any

and to what extent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-203. In ref

ere ncing the conc ept of tre ble damag es, the trial c ourt stated that it did so “for lac k of a be tter wa

y to fig ure it.” A s previously noted, the discre tion affor ded t ri al co urts has bee n-7-

de sc ri be d a s b ro a d and c omp re he ns ive , w iththe e mpo we rm e nt t o ma ke de te rm inatio ns “ in

acc ordanc e with [it s] conception of justice and r ight.” Bla ck, 290 S.W. at 21. After a car eful re view of the re c or d, we c ann ot c on c lude th at the t ri a l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

de te rm ini ngthat si x thousand dollars of the bond should be forf eited.

Conclusion We conclude that the t rial court did not abuse its discretion. The judg ment of the B edfor d County Circuit Court is affirmed.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE