Court Opinion

ID: 9570443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:13.896458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:52.498795
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(specially concurring) :
I concur in this decision for the reason the bond forfeitures in the Municipal Court did not constitute a conviction. The citation offered by defendant from Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 453 P.2d 307 (1969), was the' editor’s syllabus. The Smith decision was premised, in part, upon Torbett v. State, Okl.Cr., 449 P.2d 725 (1969), wherein this Court stated, at page 727:
“We do not believe that a bond forfeiture, intentional or otherwise, in Municipal Court, is tantamount to a conviction. A bond forfeiture is by its very nature a civil proceeding and does not terminate the criminal proceedings pending against the accused.”
The decision states further that:
“A person forfeiting a bond is subject to arrest on a bench warrant and may be placed on trial notwithstanding the forfeiture.”
Therefore, insofar as no former conviction existed in the Municipal Court, defendant’s contention of former jeopardy is without merit. Likewise, the evidence is sufficient to sustain this conviction.
I concur.