State of Louisiana v. Trey Charles Miller

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-880

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TREY CHARLES MILLER, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 143018
HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CAJUN BAIL BONDS DISMISSED;
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.

Randy J. Lasseigne
Post Office Box 5313
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-5313
(337) 233-1720
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Bankers Insurance Company
Cajun Bail Bonds

Keith Stutes
District Attorney – Parish of Lafayette
Emilia Salas Pardo
Assistant District Attorney
800 South Buchanan Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 237-5929
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

CONERY, Judge.

Bankers Insurance Company and Cajun Bail Bonds appeal the denial by the

trial court of their Motion to Be Relieved of Bond Obligation on the basis that the

surety, Bankers Insurance Company, was not provided with proper notice of the

Judgment of Bond Forfeiture by the clerk of court’s office.1 For the following

reasons, we dismiss the appeal on behalf of Cajun Bail Bonds and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellate Jurisdiction

On May 7, 2015, the trial court issued oral reasons denying the Motion to Be

Relieved of Bond Obligation filed on behalf of Bankers and Cajun. Bankers filed a

devolutive appeal pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 349.6(B). Louisiana Code of

Civil Procedure Article 349.6(B) requires that a devolutive appeal “shall be

perfected within one hundred twenty days after the date of mailing the notice of

signing the judgment.”

When the appeal by Bankers was filed on June 16, 2015, the record did not

contain the required written and signed final judgment of the trial court pursuant to

La.Code Civ.P. art. 1911. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1911 applies

to final judgments under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083, and requires that “every final

judgment shall contain the typewritten or printed name of the judge and be signed

1
The judgment of bond forfeiture, which Bankers and Cajun seek to have overturned on appeal,
named as defendants, Trey C. Miller, as principal, and Bankers, as the surety on the appearance
bond. Cajun was not a named defendant, and therefore has no right to appeal. This court is
bound to review the record and has the authority to notice on its own motion pursuant to La.Code
Civ.P. art 927(B) whether a party has a right or interest in this appeal. See State v. Lexington Nat,
Ins. Corp., 13-1134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/15/14), 134 So.3d 230, which held “that only the surety
[Bankers] may be held liable for bond forfeiture judgments . . . the bondsmen [Cajun] are not the
surety of the bonds, they are merely agents to the surety and have no obligations under the
statutory language. ]

by the judge.” Further, La.Code Civ.P. art. 1911(B) states, in pertinent part, “no

appeal may be taken from a final judgment until the requirements of this Article

have been fulfilled.”

On August 28, 2015, the record in this case was returned to the clerk of court

for the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, with correspondence, requiring the

following action be taken by the clerk’s office, “You are to add the Judgment of

May 7, 2015 and a notice of judgment (if there is one).” The clerk of court

Fifteenth Judicial District Court promptly responded and placed into the record on

appeal a signed final written judgment and notice of judgment dated August 31,

2015.

Although the original appeal lodged on June 16, 2015 was premature, the

supreme court in Overmier v. Traylor, 475 So.2d 1094, 1095 (1985) (footnote

omitted), stated:

The correct interpretation of [La.Code Civ.P. art.] 1911 is that an
appeal granted before the signing of a final judgment is subject to
dismissal until the final judgment is signed. However, once the final
judgment has been signed, any previously existing defect has been
cured, and there is no useful purpose in dismissing the otherwise valid
appeal.

This court has consistently recognized that appeals are favored
in law. Traigle v. Gulf Coast Aluminum Corp., 399 So.2d 183
(La.1981). Moreover, the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that
“(t)he articles of this Code are to be construed liberally, and with due
regard for the fact that rules of procedure implement the substantive
law and are not an end in themselves.” La.C.C.P. Art. 5051.

Having determined that this court has the required appellate jurisdiction as to

Bankers Insurance Company, we will now proceed to the merits of the appeal.

2

Issue on Appeal

On January 9, 2014, Trey C. Miller was charged with theft of jewelry valued

over $500.00, but less than $1,500.00, in violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2).2 Mr.

Miller’s bond amount was fixed at $5,000.00, and his Appearance Bond was

posted by Bankers as “Surety,” and Cajun as “Agent.” The Appearance Bond

stated that Mr. Miller would appear at all court proceedings through the

pronouncement of sentence.3

On February 25, 2014, Mr. Miller failed to appear in court as ordered to

answer to the theft charge lodged against him. The trial court issued a fugitive

warrant for Mr. Miller and ordered that the appearance bond previously set at

$5,000.00 be forfeited. The State introduced the entire Clerk’s file into the record,

which contained the returns of service of the notice of arraignment date on all the

parties, as well as the Appearance Bond.

In connection with the Appearance Bond, the Sheriff’s Office’s “BOND

ATTACHMENT” and Bankers’ “POWER OF ATTORNEY” were filed in the

record. The power of attorney, dated June 10, 2013, and signed by Wilbur L.

Martin IV, President, referenced Bankers’ bond number 580156698-3 for Mr.

Miller, and Bankers’ address, Post Office Box 33015, St. Petersburg, Florida

33733. The Bankers’ power of attorney states, in pertinent part, the authority

granted to its Agent:

[Bankers] does constitute and appoint, and by these presents does
make, constitute and appoint below named agent its true and lawful
Attorney-In-Fact for it and in its name, place and stead, to execute,
seal and deliver for and on its behalf and as its act and deed, as surety,
2
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:67 was revised effective August 1, 2014.
3
Appearance Bond Number: 704515D was filed on January 17, 2014. Mr. Miller, by
signing, agreed to the following, “I hereby specifically agree to appear in Court on when
Notified.”

3

a bail bond only. Authority of such Attorney-In-Fact is limited to
appearance bonds[.]

On March 25, 2014, an Assistant District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial

District Court filed a Judgment of Bond Forfeiture, naming as defendants “Trey C.

Miller” as principal and “Bankers Insurance Company” as surety, which was

signed by the trial court on March 27, 2014. The Judgment of Bond Forfeiture

requested service be made on Bankers at the address listed on their power of

attorney documentation, Post Office Box, 33015, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33733.

The Judgment of Bond Forfeiture listed the identical bond number for Mr. Miller,

as listed on Bankers’ power of attorney, 580156698-3.

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 349.3(B), the clerk of court, on April 7,

2014, executed an affidavit of mailing of the Judgment of Bond Forfeiture to

Bankers on April 4, 2014. The return receipt, also a part of the record on appeal,

reflects the Judgment of Bond Forfeiture was received by Bankers on April 7, 2014,

at the address listed on Bankers’ power of attorney, Post Office Box, 33015, St.

Petersburg, Florida, 33733.

On October 1, 2014, Bankers filed a “Motion To Be Relieved Of Bond

Obligation.” Bankers claimed the clerk of court had mailed the notice of judgment

of bond forfeiture to the wrong address. Instead of mailing the notice of judgment

to the address listed for Bankers on the power of attorney, according to Bankers,

the clerk should have mailed the notice to the handwritten address on the

appearance bond. It is undisputed that the address for Bankers had been “whited

out” on the Appearance Bond and changed from Post Office Box 33015 to Post

4

Office Box 15707 by Bankers’ Agent, Cajun. Therefore, Bankers argued that it

had not received proper notice as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 349.3.4

Upon a request from Bankers, a rule to show cause on its motion was fixed

for May 7, 2015. 5 At the hearing on May 7, 2015, counsel for both parties

informed the trial court that the only remaining issue was Bankers’ compliance

with La.Code Crim.P. art. 349.3, which references La.Code Crim.P. art. 322. More

specifically, counsel agreed that La.Code Crim.P. art. 349.3(A)(1) required that,

“The notice of the signing of the judgment shall be mailed by United States

certified mail with return receipt affixed thereto to . . . the commercial surety at the

address designated in Article 322[.]”

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 322(A) provides, “A

commercial surety shall inscribe its proper mailing address on the face of the

power of attorney used to execute the bond.” Further, La.Code Crim.P. art. 322(B)

(emphasis added) provides, “Each address provided pursuant to Paragraph A of

this Article shall be conclusively presumed to continue for all proceedings on the

bond until the party providing the address changes it by filing a written

declaration in the proceeding for which the bond was filed.”

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 343.3 (A)(1) and La.Code Crim.P. art. 322

(A), the clerk of court sent the notice of judgment to Bankers at the address shown

on the Power of Attorney, which granted Cajun, as their agent, authority to execute

4
In their motion to be relieved of bond obligation, Bankers also cited, in the alternative,
La.Code Crim.P. art. 344, as a basis of relief from the bond obligation. Bankers’ alternative
argument under La.Code Crim.P. art. 344 was neither argued to the trial court nor briefed to this
court on appeal, thus it is considered abandoned. Uniform Rules—Court of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4
(B)(4).
5
In the interim, Mr. Miller surrendered to authorities and a new bond was fixed. An
Appearance Bond was issued by another company. By all accounts he is presently represented
by counsel and has appeared as ordered by the Court.

5

the Appearance Bond. It is undisputed that Cajun, as Bankers’ agent, executed the

change of Bankers’ address on the Appearance Bond by “whiting out” Bankers’

address on the Power of Attorney. Therefore, Bankers’ claims the clerk of court

should have sent the notice of judgment to Bankers at the new address on the

Appearance Bond. Bankers’ urges that Cajun’s “whiting out” of the old address on

the Appearance Bond constituted the filing of “a written declaration in the

proceeding for which the bond was filed, pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art.

322(B). ”

After a review of Bankers’ Power of Attorney, the Appearance Bond, the

pertinent Code of Criminal Procedure Articles, and argument of counsel, the trial

court stated on the record at the hearing:

THE COURT: Well—But here’s the problem. It says – It says:
“The commercial surety shall inscribe its proper
mailing address on the face of the power of
attorney used to execute the bond.”

THE COURT: And so, I mean, that’s where they’re supposed to
do it. And it says: “Each address provided
pursuant to Paragraph A--” which is on the bond “-
- shall be conclusively presumed to be continuing
for all proceedings on the bond until the party
filing the address changes it by filing a written
declaration in the proceeding for which the bond
was filed.”

Well, the party would be the -- in this case, the
commercial surety. And so I don’t see where they
made any sort of written declaration.

MR. LASSEIGNE: And, Your Honor -- But they did change it on the
appearance bond. And he did sign as the agent.

THE COURT: Well, I understand that. But you know, the clerk -
- the clerk is allowed to follow 322 in giving notice.

And so they have a right to look at the power of
attorney and see what the address is and use that

6

address, unless the surety - - the commercial surety
makes a written declaration.

And I don’t think the whiting out on an appearance
bond by an agent is going to suffice. So I think
proper notice was given.

As previously discussed, a formal final judgment denying the motion to be

relieved of bond obligation was signed the trial court and noticed by the clerk’s

office on August 31, 2015, from which Bankers now appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Bankers assert the following assignment of error on appeal:

(1) Denial of the Motion to be Relieved of Bond Obligation
based upon the Court’s ruling that the suretys’(sic) written address
declaration on the appearance bond was not a declaration of a change
of address in accordance with Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 349.3

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

The case involves the interpretation of the Articles of the Louisiana Code of

Criminal Procedure applicable to bond forfeiture, more specifically La.Code

Crim.P. arts. 349.3 and 322, which control the notice required in order for the State

to perfect a bond forfeiture. “The interpretation and application of the statutes are

matters of law subject to a de novo standard of review.” State v. Lexington Nat,

Ins. Corp., 13-1134, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/15/14), 134 So.3d 230, 232. “[T]he law

in effect at the time of bond forfeiture is what applies.” State v. Adkins, 613 So.2d

164, 166 (La. 1993) (per curium).

A panel of our sister circuit in State v. Johnson, 13-133, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1

Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 15, 17-18, succinctly summarized the jurisprudence which

governs our review of a bond forfeiture:

7

The general rule is that bond forfeitures are not favored State v.
Bailey, 567 So.2d 721, 724 (La.App. 2 Cir.1990). 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. State v. Likens, 577
So.2d 285, 289 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991), writ denied, 580 So.2d 386
(La.1991). 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. Bankers Insurance Company v.
State, 37-080, p. 4 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/11/03), 843 So.2d 641, 644, writ
denied, 2003-1240 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1268.

The trial court found that the “whiting out on an appearance bond by an

agent” would not suffice to satisfy the requirements of La.Code Crim.P. art. 322

(B), which requires a “written declaration” by Bankers, as surety, of a change of

address be filed in the record of the proceedings.

We agree that a handwritten change of address on the Appearance Bond fails

to evidence a “written declaration” by Bankers that they have a new address,

especially in light of the requirement in La.Code. Crim.P. art. 349.3 that states,

“The notice of the signing of the judgment shall be mailed by United States

certified mail with return receipt affixed thereto to . . . the commercial surety at the

addresses designated in Article 322[.]” (Emphasis added.)

The mandatory language in La.Code Crim.P. art. 349.3, coupled with the

mandatory language of La.Code Crim.P. art. 322(A), requires, “A commercial

surety shall inscribe its proper mailing address on the face of the power of

attorney used to execute the bond.” (Emphasis added.) The use of the mandatory

shall language, as the trial court found, would not allow the use of “whiteout” and

a “handwritten address change” by Cajun, as Bankers agent on the Appearance

Bond, to overcome the presumption and satisfy the requirements of the “written

declaration” required by La.Code Civ.P. art. 322(B).

8

The trial court further found that the clerk of court could rely on the address

given by Bankers on the Power of Attorney in sending notice, and we agree the

article so provides. Additionally, the return receipt attached by the clerk of court

to the judgment of bond forfeiture was signed by Bankers on April 7, 2015. Thus,

it is undisputed that Bankers received actual notice of the judgment.

After conducting a de novo review of the record and considering the

provisions of both La.Code Crim.P. arts. 349.3 and 322, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment of August 31, 2015, in its entirety.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the August 31, 2015 formal final

judgment of the trial court denying Bankers Insurance Company Motion To Be

Relieved of Bond Obligation. The appeal on behalf of Cajun Bail Bonds is

dismissed in its entirety. Costs of this appeal are to be assessed to Bankers

Insurance Company.

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CAJUN BAIL BONDS DISMISSED;
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.

9