State v. Durfey

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a bondsman was entitled to remittance of a forfeited bail bond under 59 O.S. Supp. 2014 § 1332. The court determined that the bond was exonerated by operation of law because the sheriff did not honor the bondsman's written request to enter the defendant into the NCIC database without geographic restrictions. The court also found good cause for the defendant's failure to appear, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reversed the trial court, and remanded.

Holdings

1. A bond is exonerated by operation of law when the bondsman requests in writing that the defendant be entered into the NCIC database, without the territorial restriction at issue, and the sheriff fails to honor that request within fourteen business days.
2. The ninety-day grace period and payment of the bond forfeiture do not render § 1332(C) inoperative; the statutory provisions remain available after the ninety-day period has expired and the forfeiture has been paid.
3. The bondsman demonstrated good cause for Durfey's failure to appear and for the inability to return him to custody within the statutory period because the sheriff's geographic NCIC restriction impeded apprehension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether, under the facts of the case, the bondsman was entitled to remittance or exoneration of the posted bond under 59 O.S. Supp. 2014 § 1332 after the sheriff failed to honor the bondsman's written request for an unrestricted NCIC entry within fourteen business days.
2. Whether the statutory ninety-day period and payment of the forfeiture precluded relief under § 1332(C).
3. Whether the evidence established good cause supporting discretionary vacation of the forfeiture under § 1332(C)(6)(a).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded