Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Hawaii v. Justinna Mattos

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAII


January 19, 2012

STATE OF HAWAII,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JUSTINNA MATTOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
v.
EXODUS BAIL BONDS,
REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST-APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 09-1-0662)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Foley and Leonard, JJ.)

Real-Party-In-Interest-Appellant Exodus Bail Bonds

(Exodus) appeals from the Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture, filed on May 11, 2010 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).*fn1

Exodus contends that the Circuit Court erred by denying its Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture. Exodus argues that it showed good cause, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 (Supp. 2010), thereby entitling it to the return of the bail that was forfeited due to the bailee's failure to appear in court.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Exodus's points of error as follows:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In short, Exodus had until February 19, 2010 to file a motion or application showing that the bailee surrendered or was surrendered, i.e., within 30 days of Exodus's January 20, 2010 receipt of notice of the January 12, 2010 Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond. State v. Ranger Ins. Co., 83 Hawaii 118, 123, 925 P.2d 288, 293 (1996). Exodus admitted that the bailee was not surrendered until June 21, 2010. Hence, Exodus failed to show good cause to vacate the Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture.

HRS § 804-51 does not permit the filing of a second motion, however nominated, after the closing of the thirty-day window. Ranger, 83 Hawaii at 124 n.5, 925 P.2d at 294 n.5. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Exodus's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Moiton to SetAside Bail Forfeiture, filed on September 13, 2010. For these reasons, the Circuit Court's May 11, 2010 Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture is affirmed.

Chief Judge Associate Judge Associate Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.