TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Norris v. State

Henry NORRIS v. STATE of Florida

Norris v. State, 386 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 6, 1980
Docket
No. NN-283/T1-73
Judges
Church, Dauksch, Frank, Orfinger
Citations
386 So. 2d 6021980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16833

Opinion of the Court — Orfinger

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant bondsman appeals a judgment based upon a bail bond estreature.

Bond had been posted by appellant for a criminal defendant who did not appear in court after notification of his appearance date. Because of the non-appearance, the trial judge estreated the bond on January 2, 1979. Written notice of the estreature was mailed to appellant on January 4, 1979 and received by him January 8, 1979. He contends that the judgment based on the es-treature is invalid because he did not receive notice thereof within 72 hours of the forfeiture, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to set aside the judgment, relying on section 903.26(2), Florida Statutes (1977). 1

The case of Ryan v. State, 380 So.2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) is dispositive of this appeal. In Ryan , it was held that the complete absence of a post-forfeiture notice did not invalidate the forfeiture. Here, the post-forfeiture notice was sent within 72 hours of the forfeiture, so the fact that the bondsman did not receive the notice until after the 72 hour period does not affect the result. As did Ryan , we point out that we are discussing only the post-forfeiture notice mentioned in subsection (2) of the statute and not the pre-forfeiture notice of subsection (l)(a).

Finding no error, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, J., concur.

. § 903.26(2), Fla.Stat. (1977): If there is a breach of the bond, the court shall declare the bond and any bonds or money deposited as bail forfeited and shall notify the surety agent and surety company within 72 hours of said forfeiture. The forfeiture shall be paid within 30 days.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ortega v. State ex rel. Dade County393 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Most recent

  1. Ortega v. State ex rel. Dade County393 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ryan v. State, 380 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list