Opinion
CV-21-302
10-05-2022
FIRST ARKANSAS BAIL BONDS, INC. APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
Wankum Law Firm, by: J. Jeff Wankum, for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION [NO. 60CR-18-670] HONORABLE BARRY A. SIMS, JUDGE
Wankum Law Firm, by: J. Jeff Wankum, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Vaught and Murphy, JJ., agree.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc., appeals from the April 5, 2021 bond-forfeiture judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court. On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in granting the $15,000 bond-forfeiture judgment against it because appellant did not receive notice of a bond hearing. We affirm.
Appellant wrote three surety bonds for David Martinez. On December 15, 2017, appellant wrote a surety bond for Martinez in case No. 60CR-17-4386 in the amount of $25,000. On February 26, 2018, appellant wrote a surety bond for Martinez in case No. 60CR-18-670 in the amount of $15,000. On March 7, 2018, appellant wrote yet another surety bond for Martinez in case No. 60CR-18-830 in the amount of $4,000. Subsequently, Martinez failed to appear for a May 14 omnibus hearing.
The instant appeal concerns the bond-forfeiture proceedings as related to case number 60CR-18-670. The facts, issues raised on appeal, and arguments are identical to those presented in First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 397, ___S.W.3d___, which we also hand down today. Therefore, we deem it unnecessary to restate them here, and we adopt and incorporate herein by reference the reasoning set forth in the aforementioned companion case. Accordingly, we affirm the $15,000 bond-forfeiture judgment entered against appellant.
Affirmed.