POLAKOFF BAIL BONDS, AS SURETY FOR DEFENDANT, ROSE JOSEPH, AND AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., APPELLEE
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.
Polakoff Bail Bonds and American Bankers Insurance appealed the forfeiture of bonds for Rose Joseph's failure to appear for sentencing after she pled guilty. The court affirmed, holding that bonds remain in effect until a final judgment is entered, and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether an appearance bond is satisfied when guilt is found but adjudication is withheld pending sentencing.
The court held that appearance bonds remain subject to forfeiture for failure to appear at sentencing because no adjudication of guilt, imposition of sentence, or final judgment had been entered. The bonds had not been satisfied and therefore the estreature was proper.
[1] A surety bond is not satisfied by a guilty or nolo contendere plea when the court withholds adjudication and passes sentencing until the completion of a presentence inves…
[2] The entry of a guilty or nolo contendere plea is not equivalent to a judgment for the purpose of satisfying the condition of an appearance bond.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“because there had been no adjudication of guilt, no imposition of sentence, and no final judgment or order entered concerning the disposition of Joseph's criminal charges, the bonds had not been satisfied and were subject to estreature for Joseph's failure to appear for sentencing.”
States the core holding that bonds remain in effect until final judgment, not merely until guilty plea entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Bankers Insurance issued appearance bonds for Rose Joseph on two criminal cases. Joseph pled guilty to some charges, and the trial court ente…
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 Bond Estreature cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Appellants Polakoff Bail Bonds, as surety for Rose Joseph and American Bankers Insurance, appeal an order refusing to set aside a bond estreature. We affirm.
In this case American Bankers Insurance bonded Joseph for her appearance on two criminal cases. Joseph subsequently pled guilty to some of the charges. The trial court entered a finding of guilt but withheld adjudication pending a presentence investigation and set sentencing for a later date. Joseph was continued on bail but failed to appear for sentencing.
Appellants contend that under section 903.31, Florida Statutes (1991),1 and under the terms of the appearance bonds,2 these bonds cannot be construed to guarantee appearance during or after a presentence investigation. Both the First and Second District Courts of Appeal have rejected this argument. See Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We agree with Battles and Fisher and hold that, because there had been no adjudication of guilt, no imposition of sentence, and no final judgment or order entered concerning the disposition of Joseph’s criminal charges, the bonds had not been satisfied and were subject to estreature for Joseph’s failure to appear for sentencing.
As the court did in Battles, we certify, as a matter of great public importance, a similar question to the Florida Supreme Court:
UNDER SECTION 903.31, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), IS THE CONDITION OF AN APPEARANCE BOND SATISFIED WHEN THE COURT ACCEPTS A PLEA OF GUILTY AND ENTERS A FINDING OF GUILT, BUT WITHHOLDS ADJUDICATION AND JUDGMENT AND CONTINUES THE CASE FOR SENTENCING UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION?
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Section 903.31 provides:
Within 10 business days after the conditions of a bond have been satisfied or the forfeiture discharged or remitted, the court shall order the bond canceled and, if the surety has attached a certificate of cancellation to the original bond, shall furnish an executed certificate of cancellation to the surety without cost. An adjudication of guilt or innocence of the defendant shall satisfy the conditions of the bond. The original appearance bond shall not be construed to guarantee deferred sentences, appearance during or after a presentence investigation, appearance during or after appeals, conduct during or appearance after admission to a pretrial intervention program, payment of fines, or attendance at educational or rehabilitation facilities the court otherwise provides in the judgment.
§ 903.31, Fla.Stat. (1991) (emphasis added).
. The bail bond agreements state in pertinent part:
This bond is not valid for pre-sentence investigation, pre-trial intervention or countermeasure program unless specifically authorized by surety.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Orange Cnty., 634 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1994)…KOGAN, Justice. We have for review Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Orange County, 617 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), in which the Fifth District [*1084] Court of Appeal certified the following question as being of great public importance: UNDER SECTION 903.31, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), IS THE CONDITION OF AN APPEARANCE BOND SATISFIED WHEN THE…
-
Rosenberg Bail Bonds v. Orange Cnty., 663 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…l 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 of guilt, but continues the case for sentencing. The supreme court stated it agreed with this court’s…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Battles v. State, 595 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)