Court Opinion

ID: 5162642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 03:02:25.595107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:28.137013
License: Public Domain

[15] I believe the majority's lengthy interpretation of 11 O.S.Supp. 1988 § 28-127[11-28-127] is unnecessary. A bondsman is entitled to mandatory return of his forfeited property where the defendant is returned to custody in compliance with Section 28-127(E), and *Page 1016 
"upon proof that all expenses have been paid. . . ." Appellant argues this latter requirement has been met because "the City has not provided proof that any outstanding expenses exist." AmendedBrief of Appellant, at 5. I disagree. The statute clearly places the burden of proof on this requirement upon the bondsman, and appellant has not met that burden. Therefore, appellant has failed to show a clear legal right to the extraordinary writ of mandamus. See Woolen v. Coffman, 676 P.2d 1375, 1377 (Okla. Cr. 1984).
[16] Based on the foregoing, I agree the petition for a writ of mandamus should be denied.