On September 24, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld Judge Jack Alsop's ruling that "A1 Walton's Bonding" be required to forfeit $10,000 for the failure of defendant Delbert Ratliff to appear for court proceedings back in 2011.
Walton's Bonding paid Ratliff's $10,000 bond in connection with Ratliff's felony charges. A hearing was scheduled for January 10, 2011, but Ratliff sent in a letter asking to be excused as he was undergoing medical treatment. The hearing was rescheduled for 10 days later on January 20, 2011, and Ratliff failed to appear. Judge Alsop then issued a bench warrant to arrest Ratliff and take him into custody. A hearing was then set for February 2, 2011 requiring Walton's Bonding to show reasons why the bond they posted for Ratliff should not be forfeited to the State.
Prior to the February 2, 2011 hearing, the West Virginia State Police apprehended Ratliff. Walton's Bonding failed to show up for the February 2, 2011 hearing. As a result, Judge Alsop ordered that Walton's forfeit the bond. Walton's paid the bond to the Court fund but appealed Judge Alsop's ruling.
The Supreme Court rejected Walton's arguments on appeal. Walton's claimed that because Ratliff was apprehended, it did not matter whether police or the bonding company secured his attendance for the hearing. The Court rejected this claim because Walton's made no diligent efforts to find Ratliff. Walton's also complained about procedural errors in that the State never sought to revoke Ratliff's bail nor was the bonding company provided enough notice to attend the hearings. The Court also rejected this claim because Walton's is a professional bonding company and had no excuse for not attending the February 2, 2011 hearing.
The Supreme Court concluded by saying: "Upon examination of these factors, this Court finds no error in the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s request to remit bond. Petitioner is a professional bond company and admits that it failed to rearrest the defendant. This Court finds no merit in petitioner’s alleged procedural errors and notes that petitioner had actual notice of the show cause hearing, but admits that it chose not to attend. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s decision."
The full opinion can be found at this link:
No comments:
Post a Comment