AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was indicted on several felony charges related to a robbery and shooting at a diner. Howell Bonding, Inc. posted a $100,000 bond for the Defendant, who failed to appear at his scheduled trial. The district court declared the bond forfeited and issued a bench warrant for the Defendant's arrest. Howell began searching for the Defendant, who was eventually arrested by the police. Howell argued that the bond should not be forfeited because the district court failed to send written notice of the bond forfeiture within four days as required by law (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Howell Bonding, Inc.): Argued that the forfeiture of the bond was improper due to the district court's failure to send written notice within four days of declaring the bond forfeited, as required by statute. Howell also claimed prejudice from the late notice, which allegedly gave the Defendant a head start, making it harder to find him (paras 1, 5).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's failure to send written notice within four days of declaring a bond forfeited, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(B)(2)(b) (1993), renders the forfeiture improper.
• Whether Howell Bonding, Inc. was prejudiced by the district court's failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement, thus affecting the forfeiture decision.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment partially forfeiting Howell Bonding, Inc.'s bail bond was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Emil J. Kiehne, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, held that Howell Bonding, Inc. failed to demonstrate prejudice from the district court's failure to comply with the statutory requirement to send written notice within four days of declaring the bond forfeited. The court reasoned that the statute does not specify the consequences of failing to meet the notice requirement and that Howell's liability on the bail bond was not automatically absolved due to this failure. The court further found that Howell did not demonstrate that the delay in notice prejudiced its ability to locate the Defendant. Consequently, the court affirmed the partial forfeiture of the bond, emphasizing that the district court's decision was within its discretion and that Howell's arguments regarding the amount of forfeiture and the award of costs were either undeveloped or moot (paras 5-24).