State v. Lambert

2025 Ohio 208

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 24 CA 08
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lambert, 2025-Ohio-208.]

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs-

SHEILA M. LAMBERT

Defendant Case No. 24 CA 08

and

EVANS BAIL BONDS

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 22TRC01221

JUDGMENT: Reversed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 24, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant Surety

P. ROBERT BROEREN, JR. JONATHAN J. BOND MT. VERNON LAW DIRECTOR 600 Courtyard Centre 5 North Gay Street, Suite 222 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Canton, Ohio 44702 Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 08 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} This appeal arises from the efforts of appellant, Evans Bail Bonds (“Evans”),

to be discharged from liability on a bond posted for Sheila M. Lambert in State of Ohio v.

Sheila M. Lambert, Mount Vernon Municipal Court, Knox County, Case No. 22TRC01221.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} The following facts are not in dispute.

{¶3} On October 12, 2021. Sheila M. Lambert was charged with two counts of

operating a motor vehicle under the influence, a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and

4511.(A)(1)(i). On October 27, 2022, Lambert was found guilty after a jury trial and

sentenced to three years community control and one hundred eighty days in the Knox

County Jail, with all but ten days suspended.

{¶4} On November 2, 2023, Lambert was charged with a probation violation and

the next day, the trial court set bond in the amount of $5,000.

{¶5} On November 15, 2023, appellant Evans acted as surety and posted a bond

on behalf of Lambert. Evans is a licensed bail bondsman in the State of Ohio.

{¶6} The bond was conditioned upon Lambert’s appearance and surrender, if

necessary, pursuant to the orders of the Mount Vernon Municipal Court.

{¶7} On January 9, 2024, Lambert failed to appear for a hearing, and the trial

court issued a warrant for her arrest and ordered her bail revoked. On January 11, 2024,

the trial court initiated forfeiture proceedings against Evans and set the matter for a bond

forfeiture show cause hearing on February 28, 2024.

{¶8} On January 12, 2024, Lambert was arrested through the efforts of the Knox

County Sheriff and housed in the Knox County Jail pending further court proceedings. Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 3

{¶9} On that same day, Lambert appeared before the trial court for a probation

violation hearing. Thereafter, on January 18, 2024, she again appeared before the trial

court for a probation violation hearing and was found guilty of a probation violation.

{¶10} Lambert was sentenced to ninety-two days in the Knox County Jail

beginning January 18, 2024.

{¶11} On February 28, 2024, the bond forfeiture came before the trial court for a

show cause hearing.

{¶12} Appellant Evans did not appear for the show cause hearing. In a journal

entry, the trial court ordered the bond forfeited:

This matter came before the Court on 02-28-2024, for the purpose

of a show cause hearing as to why the $5,000 bond previously posted

should not be forfeited to the Court. The bond depositor was notified of the

hearing but failed to appear. The Court finds no reason why the $5,000 bond

previously posted should not be forfeited to the Court and, therefore, orders

that the bond is forfeited.

{¶13} Journal Entry, Feb. 28, 2024.

{¶14} On March 7, 2024, appellant Evans filed a motion to vacate forfeiture.

{¶15} On March 22, 2024, the trial court denied the motion to vacate bond

forfeiture.

{¶16} Appellant Evans filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s orders arguing

one assignment of error. The state has not filed a brief in opposition or any other

response. Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 4

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ENTERING

JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN ITS FEBRUARY 28, 2024

JOURNAL ENTRY BECAUSE GOOD CAUSE WAS SHOWN BY THE

APPELLANT TO AVOID JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RC. 2937.36(C), AS

THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND RETURNED THE

DEFENDANT TO THE TRIAL COURT’S CUSTODY ON JANUARY 12,

2024, AND THIS GOOD CAUSE WAS SHOWN TO THE TRIAL COURT

THROUGH THE APPELLANT’S MARCH 7, 2024 MOTION TO VACATE

FORFEITURE AND THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCES

IN COURT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE BOND FORFEITURE SHOW

CAUSE HEARING.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Standard of Review is abuse of discretion

{¶17} We review a trial court’s order forfeiting a bond under an abuse of discretion

standard. State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-2715, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) citing State v. Guzman,

2020-Ohio-539, ¶ 7 (3rd Dist.). “A court abuses its discretion when it ‘exercises its

judgment in an unwarranted way regarding a matter over which it has discretionary

authority.’ ” State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-2715 at ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) citing State v.

McFarland, 2022-Ohio-4638, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.); State v. Brown, 2018-Ohio-1047, ¶ 8 (5th

Dist.) citing State v. Green, 2002-Ohio-5769, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.).

{¶18} “Abuse of discretion is a distinctive term of art that is not meant as a

derogatory statement about the district judge whose decision is found wanting. Rather, Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 5

the term merely signifies that a district court based its ruling on an erroneous view of the

law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that

cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Village of Freeport v.

Barrella, 814 F.3d 594, 611 (2d Circ., 2016).

{¶19} In this case, appellant asks us to consider whether the trial court abused its

discretion by declaring its bond forfeited when the defendant was found by law

enforcement and incarcerated prior to the show cause hearing. Appellant did not attend

the show cause hearing and has no explanation as to why it did not attend.

R.C. 2937.36 and R.C. 2937.39 govern bond forfeiture

{¶20} The purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of a criminal defendant

before the court at a specific time. State v. Dye, 2018-Ohio-4551, ¶ 24 (5th Dist.), citing

Black’s Law Dictionary 1335 (7th Ed. 1999). “If the defendant fails to appear, there is a

breach of the condition of bond and the court may declare a forfeiture of the bond unless

the surety can be exonerated as provided by law.” State v. Lott, 2014-Ohio-3404, ¶ 8 (1st

Dist.).

{¶21} R.C. 2937.36 governs bond forfeiture proceedings and states in part:

(C) As to recognizances, the magistrate or clerk shall notify the

accused and each surety within fifteen days after the declaration of the

forfeiture by ordinary mail at the address shown by them in their affidavits

of qualifications or on the record of the case, of the default of the accused

and the adjudication of forfeiture and require each of them to show cause

on or before a date certain to be stated in the notice, and which shall be not

less than forty-five nor more than sixty days from the date of mailing notice, Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 6

why judgment should not be entered against each of them for the penalty

stated in the recognizance. If good cause by production of the body of the

accused or otherwise is not shown, the court or magistrate shall thereupon

enter judgment against the sureties or either of them, so notified, in such

amount, not exceeding the penalty of the bond, as has been set in the

adjudication of forfeiture, and shall award execution therefor as in civil

cases. The proceeds of sale shall be received by the clerk or magistrate

and distributed as on forfeiture of cash bail.

{¶22} R.C. 2937.39 governs remission of bond penalty and states:

After judgment has been rendered against surety or after securities

sold or cash bail applied, the court or magistrate, on the appearance,

surrender, or re-arrest of the accused on the charge, may remit all or such

portion of the penalty as it deems just and in the case of previous application

and transfer of cash or proceeds, the magistrate or clerk may deduct an

amount equal to the amount so transferred from subsequent payments to

the agencies receiving such proceeds of forfeiture until the amount is

recouped for the benefit of the person or persons entitled thereto under

order or remission.

Defendant arrested by law enforcement on January 12, 2024

{¶23} The record shows that the defendant was arrested by the Knox County

Sheriff on January 12, 2024. On January 18, 2024, the defendant appeared before the

trial court and was found guilty of a probation violation. Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 7

{¶24} Appellant Evans does not claim and the record does not demonstrate that

the arrest of defendant was undertaken with any aid or assistance from the appellant.

Rather, it appears the arrest was the sole result of the actions of the Knox County Sheriff’s

Deputies.

Appellant failed to appear at show cause hearing

{¶25} On February 28, 2024, the trial court held a show cause hearing on why the

bond should not be forfeited. Appellant does not claim that it failed to receive notice and

the record demonstrates that notice was sent by the clerk of courts to the address on file

for appellant. Nonetheless, appellant did not appear at the hearing and filed no

memorandum or notice to the court arguing that the bond should not be forfeited for good

cause. The trial court ordered the bond forfeited.

Appellant’s motion to vacate forfeiture

{¶26} On March 7, 2024, appellant sprang into action and filed a motion to vacate

forfeiture arguing that the defendant had been arrested prior to the motion to show cause

hearing. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant sought no stay of execution.

Ohio law on bond forfeiture

{¶27} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that production of the body of the

defendant on the date specified in the notice of default and adjudication of forfeiture

constitutes a showing of good cause why judgment should not be entered against surety

of the defendant. State v. Holmes, 57 Ohio St.3d 11 (1981), syllabus.

{¶28} Ohio appellate districts have followed the Holmes holding consistently.

Recognizing that the purpose of a surety bond is to ensure that the defendant attend all

court proceedings, when a defendant is in custody prior to a show cause hearing, it is an Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 8

abuse of discretion for the trial court to order forfeiture of a bond. See State v. Arrington,

2023-Ohio-2606, ¶ 41 (2nd Dist.) (finding that the trial court abused its discretion by

awarding judgment against surety when the defendant had been produced and appeared

before the date specified in the show cause order); City of Youngstown v. Edmonds,

2018-Ohio-3976, ¶ 19 (7th Dist.) (finding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering

bond forfeiture where defendant was returned to custody at the local jail and appeared

twice before in court before show cause hearing); State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-2715

(8th Dist.) at ¶ 17 (finding that trial court abused its discretion when surety filed motion

prior to show cause hearing and demonstrated that defendant was incarcerated in

another county).

{¶29} It makes no difference whether the defendant appears as the result of the

efforts of the surety or law enforcement. City of Toledo v Hunter, 2009-Ohio-6985, ¶ 10

(6th Dist.) (finding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering bond forfeiture where

defendant was arrested by law enforcement prior to show cause hearing and appeared

in court prior to show cause hearing).

{¶30} In this case, the matter is complicated by appellant’s failure to appear at the

show cause hearing, failure to present the defendant to the court to avoid forfeiture or file

any motion with the trial court prior to the show cause hearing as to why good cause was

shown to deny bond forfeiture. Compare City of Youngstown v. Edmonds, 2018-Ohio-

3976, at ¶ 17 (7th Dist.) (finding that surety filed a motion prior to the show cause hearing

stating the defendant was incarcerated and had appeared before the trial court).

{¶31} Indeed, it appears from the record that appellant simply disregarded the

show cause hearing and expected the trial court to summarily rule in its favor. Knox County, Case No. 24 CA 42 9

{¶32} Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court denying the bond

forfeiture and remand the case to the trial court for further hearing to allow the state to

present evidence as to its costs incurred in arresting defendant and to allow appellant

Evans to present evidence as to remission of all or a portion of the forfeited bond. AAA

Sly Bail Bonds, 2018-Ohio-2943 (5th Dist.).

CONCLUSION

{¶33} The judgment of the Mount Vernon Municipal Court, Knox County, Ohio, is

reversed and the cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with this

opinion.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

King, J., concur.

JWW/kt 0106