State v. DeLaRose

38 Citing cases

  1. State v. Williams

    977 So. 2d 154 (La. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the sixty day period under La.R.S. 15:85(c) begins to run on the initial date the defendant failed to appear, not the last date on which the defendant failed to appear

    It was not until January 9, 2007, that the trial judge rendered judgment ordering the Safety bond to be forfeited. We begin our analysis with State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980) where the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted a former version of R.S. 15:85. At that time, R.S. 15:85(a) provided in pertinent part (emphasis added):

  2. State v. Anthony

    525 So. 2d 247 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 8 times
    In Anthony, the First Circuit addressed the issue of whether a bond forfeiture was valid when notice of the defendant's court dates had not been served on him because he had supplied the court with two false addresses.

    Accordingly, defendant's failure to receive actual notice of the second arraignment date does not prevent the state from seeking the forfeiture of Sunbelt's bond due to his nonappearance. Sunbelt relies on State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980), in arguing that the state could not set a second arraignment date without first arresting the defendant on the bench warrant. In DeLaRose, the court interpreted the requirement in R.S. 15:85 A that the judge " forthwith enter a judgment decreeing the forfeiture of the bond" as expressing the legislative intent for immediate action once the defendant failed to appear, while the probability of locating him is greatest.

  3. State v. Kerrison

    701 So. 2d 1347 (La. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    For that reason, forfeitures may only be granted when the State has strictly complied with the requirements of La.R.S. 15:85. State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980); State v. Batiste, 94-1237 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/95), 653 So.2d 127; State v. Richardson, 633 So.2d 704 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1993).

  4. State v. Salgologo

    491 So. 2d 361 (La. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Salgologo, 491 So.2d 361, 363 (La. 1986), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order for a bond forfeiture to be valid under LSA-R.S. 15:85, both the surety and its agent must receive the post-forfeiture notice.

    This Court has held bond forfeitures are not favored and before a judgment of forfeiture may be entered the state must comply strictly with the provisions of Section 85 and Article 337. State v. Hathaway, 403 So.2d 737 (La. 1981); State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980). It is undisputed the state did not comply with the requirements of Article 337.

  5. State v. Bullock

    412 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1982)   Cited 10 times

    Requiring prompt and adequate notice to the surety enhances the surety's chances of locating the defendant and surrendering him to the court for trial, a desirable objective from the point of view of both the surety and the state. See State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980). The notice in the present case provided prompt and adequate notice to the surety of the forfeiture so as to afford a reasonable opportunity to locate and surrender the defendant.

  6. State v. Pickett

    408 So. 2d 1 (La. 1981)

    DENNIS, J. would grant the writ. MARCUS, J. dissents from the order and would grant to reconsider State v. DeLaRose 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980)

  7. State v. Hathaway

    403 So. 2d 737 (La. 1981)   Cited 50 times
    In State v. Hathaway, 403 So.2d 737 (La. 1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the state's failure to comply with the sixty (60) day notice requirement of La.R.S. 15:85 (A) resulted in prejudice to the surety sufficient to nullify the judgment at issue.

    As discerned from the foregoing factual recitation, it is obvious that Cotton Belt was not notified until approximately one hundred and twenty days had elapsed. Recently, we said in State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980), that in order to obtain a judgment of bond forfeiture against a surety, the state must comply strictly with the terms of the statute regulating bond forfeitures. We affirm that position and find that the state did not comply strictly with the terms of the then applicable statute as Cotton Belt, the surety, was not given proper notice within sixty days after the entry of forfeiture.

  8. State v. Richardson

    222 So. 3d 73 (La. Ct. App. 2017)

    The State argues that the district court correctly granted the judgment of bond forfeiture and denied the relief requested by Lexington to nullify the judgment. It contends that it presented appropriate proof at the March 18, 2016 hearing for the district court to determine that a bond forfeiture judgment was warranted. It adopts the reasoning of the district court in its September 9, 2016 opinion and order. It also contends that it gave proof of notice, followed the procedures set forth in La. R.S. 15:85 and strictly complied with the terms of the statutory provisions regulating bond forfeiture, as required in State v. DeLaRose , 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980). The general rule is that bond forfeitures are not favored. Bankers Ins. Co. v. State , 37,080 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/11/03), 843 So.2d 641, writ denied , 03-1240 (La. 6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1268, citing State v. Bailey , 567 So.2d 721 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990).

  9. State v. Weaver

    951 So. 2d 421 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Banker's Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 96-0469 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/20/96), 686 So.2d 111; State v. Lanns, 95-0781 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/95), 665 So.2d 66. Thus, the State must strictly comply with the statutory procedure in bond forfeiture actions in order to obtain a valid bond forfeiture. State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980); State v. Rotramel, 95-1074 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1/31/96), 670 So.2d 378. In the present case, the record shows the address appearing above Weaver's signature to be "2839 Salem Street, Kenner LA."

  10. State v. McLaurin

    927 So. 2d 570 (La. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Banker's Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 96-0469 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/20/96), 686 So.2d 111; State v. Lanns, 95-0781 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/95), 665 So.2d 66. Thus, the State must strictly comply with the statutory procedure in bond forfeiture actions in order to obtain a valid bond forfeiture. State v. DeLaRose, 391 So.2d 842 (La. 1980); State v. Rotramel, 95-1074 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1/31/96), 670 So.2d 378. Applying the above precepts to the case before us, we find that the bond was improperly forfeited and the trial court ruling denying Banker's motion to set aside the bond forfeiture was erroneous.