Case Name: FAST RELEASE BAIL BONDS, INC., and Friendly Bail Bonds, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-02-02
Citations: 895 So. 2d 448
Docket Number: No. 4D02-2790
Parties: FAST RELEASE BAIL BONDS, INC., and Friendly Bail Bonds, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: POLEN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 895
Pages: 448–452

Head Matter:
FAST RELEASE BAIL BONDS, INC., and Friendly Bail Bonds, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D02-2790.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 2, 2005.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 2005.
Rachel S.G. Dooley, Paige C. Tarver, Joseph F. Frederick, III of Dooley, Tarver & Frederick, Miami, for appellants.
Edward A. Dion, Andrew J. Meyers, James D. Rowlee and Beth-Ann E. Hers-chaft, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
MAY, J.
Two sureties appeal an order denying their motion to set aside a bond estrea-ture. They argue that they were prejudiced by the court's issuance of a capias for the defendant and the court erred in failing to set aside the bond estreature. We disagree and affirm.
On October 8, 2001, the trial judge notified the defendant in court of an upcoming hearing on November 9, 2001. The defendant failed to appear. The trial court issued a "no bond" alias capias and estreat-ed the bond.
The sureties moved to have the estrea-ture set aside based upon the clerk's failure to properly notice them for the November 9, 2001 hearing. On January 8, 2002, the trial court set aside the estrea-ture, but did not vacate the alias capias. The court set the case for hearing on February 24, 2002. The clerk noticed the error in the month, and immediately issued a corrected notice for January 24, 2002.
At that hearing, the sureties argued they had been prejudiced due to the change in the hearing date and because the case was re-set within three weeks of the January 8, 2002 hearing. They advised the court that when they learned of the earlier bond estreature, they contacted the defendant and told him of the "no bond" capias. The defendant told them he would not surrender because he did not want to go to jail. The defendant then fled to Texas where the sureties were unable to capture him. The court estreated the bond for a second time.
The sureties filed another motion to set aside the bond estreature. After two continuances, the trial court heard the sureties' motion to set aside the second estrea-ture on May 30, 2002. On June 3, 2002, the court denied the motion.
The essence of the sureties' argument is the trial court's failure to set aside the capias prejudiced their ability to surrender the defendant because the capias caused the defendant to flee. We disagree.
"A bond is a three-party contract made by the [S]tate, the accused, and the surety, guaranteeing the accused's presence before the court." Bush v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 834 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Wiley v. State, 451 So.2d 916, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)). If the State interferes with the surety's right to control the accused, then the surety is discharged. Id. Here, however, the State did not interfere with the surety's control of the defendant.
The trial court correctly issued the "no bond" capias for the defendant when he failed to appear for the November hearing. While the original trial court initially erred in estreating the bond, it corrected that error when it set aside the estreature on January 8, 2002, due to lack of proper notice. See § 903.26(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). It was the defendant's independent decision to flee the jurisdiction that interfered-with the sureties' control over him. Thus, the sureties are not relieved from their contractual obligation to produce the defendant.
When the court re-noticed the matter for hearing in January 2002, the sureties were required to produce the defendant or suffer the consequences.' They were unable to produce the defendant. The court correctly estreated the bond the second time. The successor trial court then correctly denied the sureties' motion to set aside the properly issued bond estreature. We affirm.
POLEN, J., concurs.
BERNSTEIN, SCOTT, Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.
. There are multiple bonds and multiple sureties in this case, but the chronology of facts and outcome of the motions to set aside the bond estreatures are the same. For ease of reference, we refer to the bonds in a singular form.