2015 UT App 175

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

1ST OUT BAIL BONDS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUSTICE COURT AND 

THE HONORABLE RONALD READ,

Appellees.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150411-CA

Filed July 16, 2015

Fifth District Court, St. George Department

The Honorable John J. Walton

No. 150500083

Randall T. Gaither, Attorney for Appellant

Brock R. Belnap and Eric W. Clarke, Attorneys

for Appellees

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN

and KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 1st Out Bail Bonds, LLC, appeals a ruling of the district 

court denying its petition for extraordinary relief. This case is 

before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary 

disposition. We affirm.

¶2 1st Out Bail Bonds filed a petition for extraordinary relief 

in the district court seeking reversal of the Washington County 

Justice Court’s order that bail in the amount of $623 be forfeited. 

The district court granted a motion to dismiss, determining that 

the justice court correctly granted a motion for bail forfeiture and 

that, even assuming the issuance of the bail forfeiture order was 

based on a mistake of law, extraordinary relief was not 

appropriate.
1st Out Bail Bonds, LLC v. Washington County Justice Court

20150411-CA 2 2015 UT App 175

¶3 Our review on appeal is limited to reviewing the district 

court’s decision to deny extraordinary relief. “The decision to 

grant or deny a petition for extraordinary writ is discretionary.” 

Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs, 2013 UT 74, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 662. 

“Unlike a party filing a direct appeal, a petitioner seeking . . . 

extraordinary relief has no right to receive a remedy that corrects 

a lower court’s mishandling of a particular case. Rather, whether 

relief is ultimately granted is left to the sound discretion of the 

court hearing the petition.” State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 23, 127 

P.3d 682. “In sum, if a petitioner is able to establish that a lower 

court abused its discretion, that petitioner becomes eligible for, 

but not entitled to, extraordinary relief.” Id. ¶ 24. 

¶4 Defendant Donald Christopher Lahnan failed to appear in 

the justice court at a May 8, 2014 hearing. During that hearing, 

Lanhan’s appointed counsel stated that he was not in contact 

with Lahnan and did not have a good address for him. The 

justice court issued a warrant of arrest and a Notice of 

Defendant’s Failure to Appear and Order to Commence Bond 

Forfeiture Proceedings. That notice included a Certificate of 

Notification stating that the Washington County Justice Court 

had sent the notice to 1st Out Bail Bonds by certified mail. It is 

undisputed that 1st Out Bail Bonds failed to produce the 

defendant within six months of notice. St. George City moved to 

collect on the bail bond, and the justice court granted the motion. 

¶5 1st Out Bail Bonds argued in its petition for extraordinary 

relief that the justice court was required by statute to give notice 

of failure to appear on two prior occasions when Lahnan did not 

appear personally but was represented by counsel who had 

excused his client from attending. 1st Out Bail Bonds claimed 

that when Lahnan’s attorney appeared on his behalf at the July 

2013 and January 2014 hearings without Lahnan also being 

present, it triggered the statutory requirements to give notice to 

the surety. 1st Out Bail Bonds also claimed that the City was 

required to provide a copy of the actual certified mail receipt 

when it moved for bail forfeiture. The district court rejected 

those arguments, concluding that the justice court complied with 
1st Out Bail Bonds, LLC v. Washington County Justice Court

20150411-CA 3 2015 UT App 175

the statutory requirements. Finally, 1st Out Bail Bonds argued 

that the justice court erred in granting the motion for bail 

forfeiture because there was no notice to submit filed. The 

district court decided that the justice court did not err in 

granting the City’s motion for bail forfeiture at the close of 

briefing on the motion. See Utah R. Crim. P. 12(b) (“If no party 

filed a written Request to Submit, or the motion has not otherwise 

been brought to the attention of the court, the motion will not be 

considered submitted for decision.” (emphasis added)).

¶6 Upon a defendant’s failure to appear, the court is required 

to issue a bench warrant and to direct that the surety be given 

notice of the nonappearance. Utah Code Ann. § 77-20b-101(1) 

(LexisNexis 2012). The clerk of court shall then (1) send notice of 

the failure to appear to the surety by certified mail, (2) notify the 

surety of the prosecutor’s contact information, and (3) provide 

notice to the prosecutor of the failure to appear. Id. In this case, 

the City’s motion for bail forfeiture was supported by a copy of 

the notice sent to the surety of the defendant’s nonappearance, 

along with the certificate of the justice court clerk indicating that 

the notice to the surety was sent by certified mail. The district 

court found that the justice court complied with the statutory 

requirements. 1st Out Bail Bonds has identified no authority 

supporting its argument that an appearance through counsel is 

nevertheless a nonappearance by a defendant. 

¶7 Under the circumstances of this case, 1st Out Bail Bonds 

has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying extraordinary relief. In addition, 1st Out 

Bail Bonds has failed to identify any legal authority to support 

its claim that the Washington County Justice Court failed to 

comply with the statutory requirements for bail forfeiture. 

Accordingly, we affirm.