Boice v. State

23 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fish

    1987 OK 128 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Fish, 1987 OK 128, ¶¶ 4-6, 747 P.2d 956, 957-59, superseded by statute, we construed 22 O.S. 1981 § 1108[ 22-1108](A) and 59 O.S.Supp. 1984 §§ 1330[ 59-1330] and 1332 to give the trial court discretion to set aside a bond forfeiture where good cause is shown for the defendant's failure to appear.

    State v. Imperial Insurance Co., 539 P.2d 734, 735 (Okla. 1975); State v. Scott, 371 P.2d 704, 706 (Okla. 1962); Ramer v. State, 302 P.2d 139, 141 (Okla. 1956).Lorentz v. State, 531 P.2d 332, 334 (Okla. 1975); Machell v. State, 481 P.2d 148, 150 (Okla. 1971); Boice v. State, 473 P.2d 241 (Okla. 1970); State v. York, 541 P.2d 1367, 1369-70 (Okla.Ct.App. 1975).Presnell v. State, 634 P.2d 775, 776 (Okla.Ct. App. 1981).

  2. State v. Youngblood

    571 P.2d 1227 (Okla. 1977)

    Neither State nor appellees (defendant, bondsman and surety) dispute the applicable rule of law. In Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241 (1970), this Court held: "If a motion to vacate the forfeiture of an appearance bond in a criminal action is filed within the time allowed therefor by statute and the principal or the surety on the bond present a satisfactory excuse for the principal's failure to appear as required by the bond, the granting of such motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court."

  3. State v. Foster

    1977 OK 48 (Okla. 1977)   Cited 5 times
    In Foster, the printed bond form provided by the court clerk contained terms which were broader than those of the applicable statute.

    The court also discussed the appeal bond statutes. State argues that by the repeal of § 5963, the trial court is authorized to defer commitment after sentencing and that Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241 (1970), makes clear that a surety on an appearance bond is not automatically discharged or exonerated unless the defendant-principal is committed to custody. State also points to the provisions of 22 O.S. 1971 § 1108[ 22-1108], as authority for the continued obligations of a surety on an appearance bond.

  4. State v. Imperial Insurance Company

    1975 OK 53 (Okla. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    In Machell v. State, Okla., 481 P.2d 148, we held there was no legal distinction between the language in each of these sections, and that evidence sufficient as to one of the statutes would be sufficient under the other. In Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241, 246, we said it was a prerequisite to consideration of a motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond that the principal or his surety appear and "satisfactorily excuse his neglect," and if they did appear and present a satisfactory excuse for defendant's failure to appear, then the granting of such motion was within the sound discretion of the court. And in State v. Scott, Okla., 371 P.2d 704, 706, we said a surety on an appearance bond undertakes an absolute duty to produce the principal at the time set for hearing, and is bound to know when the defendant's presence is required.

  5. Lorentz v. State

    1975 OK 2 (Okla. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    We affirm the order of the trial court in denying the motion and in refusing to set aside the order and judgment of forfeiture. A syllabus by the court in Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241 (1970), states: "Where the principal on a criminal appearance bond which requires him to appear before the district court on the first day of the next term of court and there remain from day to day and term to term until discharged by due course of law, appears for trial and is found guilty of the charge preferred against him, or pleads guilty to such charge and the court accepts the plea of guilty, the surety on the bond is not exonerated or discharged unless the principal is then and there committed into the custody of the proper officer to await the judgment of the court."

  6. Resolute Insurance Company v. State

    1971 OK 7 (Okla. 1971)   Cited 3 times
    In Resolute the court was presented with a question concerning the conditions for forfeiture of an appeal bond wherein defendant, when due to appear in Oklahoma, was in jail in Texas.

    The above enactment may not be construed to hold that if a defendant, who has been released on bond, leaves Oklahoma without permission, and is in custody of a court of another state for an offense committed by him after his release on bond, that the surety on the bond is exonerated if an alias warrant is issued and the surety offers to pay the necessary expenses to return defendant to Oklahoma. In Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241, we said the 1965 enactment repealed all laws or parts of laws in conflict therewith but did not expressly repeal any specific statute; and that it prevails over, or supersedes, earlier statutes on the same subject matter which are in conflict therewith. Since the 1965 enactment does not prescribe when forfeiture will or will not lie under the circumstances presented in the case at bar, we must consider other statutes and our construction of those statutes.

  7. Powers v. Trent

    129 W. Va. 427 (W. Va. 1946)   Cited 20 times

    "The 5th section of chapter 161 of the Code of 1860, page 685, provides that the proceedings of every court shall be entered in a book, read in open court by the clerk, and after being corrected, when it may be necessary, the record shall be signed by the presiding judge or justice. It is therefore very manifest that unless and until the proceedings of a court are recorded and signed as required by the statute, they can have no force or efficacy whatever." See also Boice v. The State, 1 W. Va. 329; Wickes v. B. O. R. R. Co., 14 W. Va. 157. In State v. Vest, 21 W. Va. 796, this Court, in discussing the character and the composition of judicial record, says:

  8. State v. Stotts

    642 P.2d 618 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982)

    Absent a bond provision calling for an earlier termination, the law contemplates what the courthouse people refer to as a "cradle to the grave" bond — one that remains in force until accused is either acquitted or starts serving a sentence.Lorentz et al. v. State of Okla., Okla., 531 P.2d 332 (1975); Boice v. State of Okla., Okla., 473 P.2d 241 (1970). Here the bondswoman made no effort to appear and prove Stotts had breached the undertaking or was about to jump bail, nor did the bond by its terms end upon a conviction of the principal.

  9. Presnell v. State

    634 P.2d 775 (Okla. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 2 times

    The court's discretion is limited to the facts, circumstances and merits of the reason offered for defendant's failure to appear. Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241 (1970). The exercise of discretion is "triggered" only by evidence sufficient to justify defendant's failure to appear.

  10. State v. Davidson

    544 P.2d 1292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976)

    That portion of Resolute relied upon reads: "In Boice v. State, Okla., 473 P.2d 241, we said the 1965 enactment repealed all laws or parts of laws in conflict therewith but did not expressly repeal any specific statute; and that it prevails over, or supersedes, earlier statutes on the same subject matter which are in conflict therewith. . . . . . .