State of Louisiana v. Chance Maquand Ross

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FfA0 5 FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 CA 0446
i

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS
vi

CHANCE MAQUAND ROSS

Judgment Judgment Rendered:Rendered: MARMAR 22 55 20212021

4111141111
Z054-Z054- ff

OnOn AppealAppeal fromfrom thethe NineteenthNineteenth JudicialJudicial DistrictDistrict CourtCourt
InIn andand forfor thethe ParishParish ofof EastEast BatonBaton RougeRouge
StateState ofof LouisianaLouisiana
No.No. 10-10- 16-16- 06140614

HonorableHonorable FredFred T.T. Crifasi,Crifasi, JudgeJudge Presiding Presiding

HillarHillar C.C. Moore,Moore, IIIIII CounselCounsel forfor AppelleeAppellee
DistrictDistrict AttorneyAttorney StateState ofof LouisianaLouisiana
MichelleMichelle A.A. LacosteLacoste
Assistant Assistant DistrictDistrict AttorneyAttorney
BatonBaton Rouge,Rouge, LouisianaLouisiana

RalphRalph BickhamBickham CounselCounsel forfor Defendant/Defendant/ AppelleeAppellee
NewNew Orleans,Orleans, LouisianaLouisiana ChanceChance MaquandMaquand RossRoss

WilliamWilliam NolandNoland Counsel Counsel forfor Defendant/Defendant/ AppellantAppellant
Brandon,Brandon, MississippiMississippi LexingtonLexington NationalNational InsuranceInsurance
CorporationCorporation

BEFORE:BEFORE: GUIDRY,GUIDRY, McCLENDON,McCLENDON, THERIOT,THERIOT, LANIER,LANIER, ANDAND WOLFE,WOLFE, JJ.JJ.

McCLENDON, J.

In this appeal, a surety challenges the trial court's bond forfeiture judgment that

awarded the State of Louisiana the face amount of the appearance bond, plus attorney

fees and costs. For the following reasons, we reverse and set aside the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2016, Lexington National Insurance Corporation ( Lexington), a

commercial surety company, executed a bail undertaking in the amount of $ 30, 000. 00

on behalf of a defendant, Chance Marquand Ross.' ( R. pp. 9- 10). On August 31, 2017,

the defendant failed to appear in court as required, and the trial court ordered the

issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest. ( R. p. 41). The Notice of Warrant for Arrest

was issued on September 6, 2017. ( R. pp. 58- 59). Thereafter, the defendant failed to

make an appearance and did not surrender or constructively surrender within the one -

hundred -and -eighty -day period set forth in LSA- C. Cr. P. arts. 335 and 336A. On August

12, 2019, almost two years later, the State filed a rule to show cause, requesting that a

bond forfeiture judgment be rendered against the defendant and Lexington. 2 ( R. p. 53).

In response to the State' s rule to show cause, Lexington filed a Peremptory Exception

of Peremption on September 12, 2019, arguing that the appearance of the defendant in

court on March 15, 2018, extinguished the right of the State to file the rule for a bond

forfeiture judgment. ( R. p. 61). Also on September 12, 2019, Lexington filed an answer

raising the affirmative defense of extinguishment of the obligation, pursuant to LSA-

C. Cr. P. art. 331. ( R. p. 75).

Following a hearing on October 2, 2019, the trial court denied the exception.

Thereafter, on October 28, 2019, the trial court rendered a bond forfeiture judgment in

favor of the State and against the defendant and Lexington, in soiido, in the original

principal amount of $ 30, 000. 00, plus judicial interest from the date of judicial demand

1 The bond was posted for the criminal offenses of possession with intent to distribute a controlled
dangerous substance, Schedule I, a violation of LSA- R. S. 40: 966A, and possession of a firearm while in
possession of a controlled dangerous substance, a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 95E. ( R. p. 9).

z The State attached to its rule to show cause copies of the appearance bond, the power of attorney
executed by the agent for the surety, the Notice of Warrant for Arrest, and a Certificate of Notice that the
Notice of Warrant for Arrest was mailed to the defendant and surety.

2

until paid, plus attorney fees in the amount of 20% of the aggregate outstanding

balance, and interest, and all costs of court. Lexington has suspensively appealed the

October 28, 2019 judgment.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a bail ( and a bond securing bail) is to ensure that the accused

will appear at all stages of the proceedings to answer the charge for which he will be

prosecuted. State v. Jones, 15- 1232 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 8/ 17/ 16), 200 So. 3d 950, 952,

writ denied, 16- 1651 ( La. 6/ 29/ 17), 222 So. 3d 48. When a defendant fails to be

present in court at a subsequent scheduled appearance, the State may obtain a

forfeiture of the surety bond. Id.

Generally, bond forfeitures are not favored. State v. Johnson, 13- 0133

La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 1/ 13), 136 So. 3d 15, 17.
A bond forfeiture is basically a civil

proceeding; however, it is subject to the special rules as set forth in the Code of

Criminal Procedure.
In order to obtain a judgment of bond forfeiture against a surety,

the State must strictly comply with the terms of the statutory provisions regulating bond
forfeitures. Johnson, 136 So. 3d at 17- 18.

In its appeal, Lexington argues that when the defendant appeared in court on

March 15, 2018, after the one hundred eighty days but before the State filed its rule to

show cause, the guilty plea by the defendant and his sentencing on March 15, 2018,

released Lexington of all its obligations under the bail undertaking. Lexington

specifically refers to LSA- C. Cr. P. art. 331A( 1), which provides that "[ u] pon conviction in

any case, the bail undertaking shall cease and the surety shall be relieved of all
3
obligations under the bail undertaking."

On December 30, 2020, another panel of this court rendered its decision in

State v. Byrd, 20- 0447 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/ 20), So. 3d . 4 In Byrd, as here,

3 Lexington also argues that the appearance of the defendant in court on March 15, 2018, interrupted
the running of the time period within which the State could file its rule to show cause. While Lexington
admits that the one hundred eighty days set forth in Articles 335 and 336A had elapsed on March 5,
2018, it asserts that a second time period began to run on March 6, 2018. Because we are setting aside
the trial court' s judgment pursuant to Article 331A( 1), we need not address Lexington' s argument.

4 We note that the case before us was allotted to a five -judge panel prior to this court's decision in
Byrd.

3

the defendant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced by the trial court prior to the

institution of the claim for bond forfeiture relief. This court held that by operation of

the provisions of Article 331A( 1), upon the defendant's conviction, the surety's bail

undertaking ceased, and the surety was relieved of all obligations under the bail

undertaking. 5 Byrd, So. 3d at Therefore, this court reversed, finding that the

State was unable to offer the requisite proof of the bail undertaking as required in

Article 336. 6

Similarly, in this matter, when the State instituted the rule to show cause

requesting rendition of a bond forfeiture judgment, after the defendant's guilty plea and

sentencing, the bail undertaking had ceased and the surety had been relieved of all

obligations under the bail undertaking. Finding Byrd to be applicable, we reverse and

set aside the trial court's judgment.

CONCLUSION

Considering the above, we reverse and set aside the October 28, 2019 judgment

of the trial court in favor of the State of Louisiana and against Chance Maquand Ross

and Lexington National Insurance Corporation. Costs of this appeal in the amount of

554. 50 are assessed against the State of Louisiana.

REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

5 The court in Byrd, stated that " it is axiomatic that a guilty plea is a conviction." Byrd, _ So. 3d at
citing State v. West, 18- 0868 ( La. App. 1 Or. 5/ 31/ 11), 277 So. 3d 1213, 1217.

6 Compare State v. Jones, 19- 1052 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 4/ 29/ 20), 299 So. 3d 654, and State v. Jones, 18-
909 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 6/ 5/ 19), 275 So. 3d 34.

51