AAA BAIL BONDS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND PETER ARTHUR BARRETT, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
AAA Bail Bonds appeals a bond forfeiture order, challenging whether an appearance bond condition is satisfied when a court accepts a guilty or nolo contendere plea but withholds adjudication and sentencing pending a presentence investigation. The court affirms the forfeiture, holding that entry of judgment is a prerequisite to satisfying an appearance bond condition.
No. The entry of judgment is required as a predicate to satisfaction of an appearance bond. A plea of guilty or nolo contendere, without entry of judgment, does not satisfy the condition of an appearance bond. When a defendant fails to appear for sentencing after a plea is accepted but before judgment is entered, the bond condition for forfeiture has been met.
[1] An appearance bond is not satisfied by a defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere if no judgment has been entered and the case is passed for sentencing until the com…
[2] The plain meaning of statutory language is the primary consideration in statutory construction, and legislative history may only be considered to resolve ambiguity.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Entry of a nolo contendere plea is not tantamount to a judgment so as to satisfy the condition of an appearance bond.”
Establishes the core holding that a plea alone, without judgment entry, does not satisfy bond conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA defendant was released on an appearance bond. The defendant entered a plea (either guilty or nolo contendere) in the trial court, but the court did …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Entry Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
This single issue appeal poses the question whether, under section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1989), the condition of an appearance bond is satisfied when the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, but enters no judgment, and passes the case for adjudication and sentencing until the completion of the presentence investigation. A very similar question was certified to the Florida Supreme Court in Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
We agree with the rationale employed by the Battles court and affirm the order of the trial court here, which forfeited a surety bond under circumstances almost identical to those presented by the certified question in Battles.
The Battles court explained its holding as follows:
In 1986 the legislature amended § 903.31 to provide that the original appearance bond shall not be construed to guarantee “appearance during or after a presentence investigation, appearance during or after appeals, (or) conduct during or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program ... the court otherwise provides in the judgment.” Thus, even though the statute has been amended, the entry of judgment is still required as a predicate to satisfaction of the bail bond. Indeed, the Second District has expressly held that Accredited Surety [& Casualty Co. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)] and American Druggists’ [Ins. Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ] retain their vitality under the current version of § 903.31. State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Entry of a nolo contendere plea is not tantamount to a judgment so as to satisfy the condition of an appearance bond.
595 So. 2d at 184-85 (emphasis added).
In the present case, rather than a plea of nolo contendere there was a plea of not guilty, followed by a nonjury trial. As in Battles, however, adjudication was withheld and sentencing passed until the pre-sentence investigation could be completed. When appellee, Barrett, failed to appear for a scheduled sentencing, the condition for forfeiture had been met. Thus, the bond was properly forfeited and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Orange Cnty., 634 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1994)…cates a defendant guilty and provides for the presentence investigation within the judgment, the bond is not satisfied and the defendant must continue to appear at all subsequent proceedings to avoid forfeiture. Accord AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 611 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); cf. American Druggists’ Ins. Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (construing prior version of statute to requi…
-
Rosenberg Bail Bonds v. Orange Cnty., 663 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…scharged. Id. at 185. The dissent argued that the plain language of the statute provided that original appearance bonds did not guarantee appearance during or after a presentence investigation. Battles was followed in AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 611 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and by this court in Polakoff Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Orange County, 617 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). This court certified the question whether a bond is satisfied where the trial court accepts a guilty plea and enters a finding…
-
Broward Cnty. v. B & B Bail Bonds, 790 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…e is an essential part of a criminal prosecution at which a defendant shall be present. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.180(a)(9). When Gore failed to appear for sentencing on July 19, the court properly forfeited the bond. See AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 611 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(holding that condition for forfeiture met when defendant entered plea of no contest, case passed for sentencing and adjudication, and defendant failed to appear for sentencing); State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., Inc. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- The Am. Druggists' Ins. Co. v. State of Fla. & Rose Bubucha, 410 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)