{ "id": 8920671, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFREY CRAIG POTEAT, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Poteat", "decision_date": "2004-04-20", "docket_number": "No. COA03-764", "first_page": "741", "last_page": "747", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "163 N.C. App. 741" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 S.E. 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272133 ], "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "707" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 S.E.2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54120, 54158, 53875, 54037, 53942 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0753-01", "/nc/345/0753-04", "/nc/345/0753-03", "/nc/345/0753-05", "/nc/345/0753-02" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11888632 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525674 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 S.E.2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Moore, 57 N.C. App. 676, 678, 292 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1982" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 742", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526114 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Moore, 57 N.C. App. 676, 678, 292 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1982" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0742-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6-7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575910 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "634" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795937 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0482-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 581, "char_count": 15031, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.92868304757697e-08, "percentile": 0.5007950270459783 }, "sha256": "c1d9e77dc9f3e6f6ac6d0ef8002d829d1f46ce3adae67da3d5347125bc9511c0", "simhash": "1:48f3f821ba6b0050", "word_count": 2491 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:37.331987+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McCULLOUGH and BRYANT concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFREY CRAIG POTEAT, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nIn this appeal we must determine whether the trial court erred by denying professional bail bondsman Tim Mathis\u2019 (Mathis) motion to set aside forfeiture of an appearance bond Mathis posted on behalf of Jeffrey Craig Poteat (Poteat) for the purpose of securing Poteat\u2019s appearance in court to answer charges of driving while license revoked and failure to appear. Because we conclude that the trial court correctly denied Mathis\u2019 motion, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order.\nThe underlying facts are as follows: on 29 August 1995, a North Carolina State Highway Patrol officer cited Poteat for driving while license revoked, a misdemeanor, on Interstate 40 near Burlington, North Carolina. The citation directed Poteat to appear in Alamance County District Court to answer the charge on 25 September 1995. After Poteat failed to appear in court on 25 September 1995, a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear as directed by the citation was issued on 4 October 1995, with bond set at $200.00 secured. On 5 November 1995, this warrant was returned unexecuted because the North Carolina State Highway Patrol was unable to locate Poteat.\nThereafter, on 30 September 1997, a new warrant for Poteat\u2019s arrest was issued based on the same facts and circumstances stated in the 4 October 1995 arrest warrant, with bond increased to $400.00 seemed. As with the earlier arrest warrant, this warrant was returned unexecuted on 15 October 1997, this time by the Alamance County Sheriff\u2019s Department. The arrest warrant for failure to appear was reissued on 8 June 2001, and Poteat was arrested the same day. Poteat was released from jail later that day after Adean McBroom (McBroom), Poteat\u2019s mother, became surety for Poteat by posting an appearance bond for pretrial release in the amount of $400.00. Pursuant to a release order executed by an Alamance County Magistrate, Poteat was ordered to appear in Alamance County District Court on 11 June 2001.\nOn 11 December 2001, the Alamance County Clerk of Superior Court issued an order for Poteat\u2019s arrest after Poteat failed to appear in court on that date as directed. The record on appeal does not contain a release order directing Poteat to appear in court on 11 December 2001, although the 11 December 2001 order for Poteat\u2019s arrest states Poteat \u201chas been arrested and released from custody and has failed to appear on 12/11/01 as required by the release order.\u201d On 31 December 2001, a bond forfeiture notice was entered notifying McBroom that the appearance bond she posted as surety for Poteat had been ordered forfeited due to Poteat\u2019s failure to appear in court on 11 December 2001. Meanwhile, Alamance County sheriffs deputies were unable to locate Poteat, and the 11 December 2001 order for his arrest was returned unserved on 20 February 2002.\nIn May 2002, a writ of execution was issued against Poteat, and McBroom as surety, seeking recovery by the State of North Carolina of the $400.00 appearance bond which had been forfeited by Poteafs failure to appear on 11 December 2001. This writ of execution was returned on 3 June 2002 because appellee Alamance-Burlington Board of Education (School Board) refused to advance the required levy fees.\nOn 6 September 2002, a Mecklenburg County sheriffs deputy arrested Poteat after receiving the 11 December 2001 order for Poteafs arrest. A release order issued 6 September 2002 in Mecklenburg County set Poteafs bond at $9,200.00 secured and ordered him held in the Mecklenburg County jail for \u201cpick-up by Alamance County.\u201d The portion of the release order entitled \u201cOffense(s)\u201d contained the following entries: \u201cDWLR\u201d for \u201cdriving while license revoked,\u201d and what appears to be \u201cOFA/FTA,\u201d which, while somewhat difficult to read on-the copy contained in the record, appears to stand for \u201corder for arrest/failure to appear.\u201d\nAppellant Mathis, a professional bail bondsman from Monroe, North Carolina who testified that he writes most of his bonds in Mecklenburg and Union counties, first became involved in these proceedings on 12 September 2002, when he entered into an appearance bond for Poteafs pretrial release in the amount of $9,200.00. On 30 September 2002, the Alamance County Clerk of Superior Court issued another order for Poteafs arrest, stating again that Poteat \u201chas been arrested and released from custody and has failed to appear on 12/11/01 as required by the release order.\u201d The Alamance County Clerk\u2019s office then issued a second bond forfeiture notice, this time to Mathis as surety, indicating \u201cDate of Forfeiture\u201d as 30 September 2002, \u201cDate of Notice Given\u201d as 12 October 2002, and \u201cFinal Judgment Date\u201d as 11 March 2003. Thus, it appears from the record that following Poteat\u2019s release on the appearance bond executed by Mathis on 12 September 2002, Poteat was directed to appear in court on 30 September 2002, and that Poteat failed to appear, for a third time, on that date.\nOn 10 March 2003, one day before the \u201cFinal Judgment Date\u201d as indicated on the bond forfeiture notice served upon Mathis in October 2002, Mathis moved to set aside forfeiture of the $9,200.00 appearance bond he entered into as surety for Poteat on 12 September 2002. The School Board filed an objection to Mathis\u2019 motion on 20 March 2003. The trial court heard arguments on Mathis\u2019 motion on 21 April 2003 and denied the motion, on the grounds that Mathis had notice of Poteat\u2019s two prior failures to appear before entering into the 12 September 2002 appearance bond for Poteat\u2019s pretrial release. From this order, Mathis now appeals.\nThe issues are whether the trial court erred by (1) denying Mathis\u2019 motion to set aside the bond forfeiture where he had constructive notice of Poteat\u2019s two prior failures to appear, and (2) finding that Poteat had two prior failures to appear and denying Mathis\u2019 motion to set aside the bond forfeiture on this basis.\nBy his first assignment of error, Mathis contends that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) should be construed as requiring that a surety or bail agent have actual, rather than constructive, notice that a defendant has failed to appear on two or more prior occasions before the surety is precluded from having the forfeiture set aside. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) provides as follows:\n(f) No More Than Two Forfeitures May Be Set Aside Per Case.\u2014 In any case in which the State proves that the surety or the bail agent had notice or actual knowledge, before executing a bail bond, that the defendant had already failed to appear on two or more prior occasions, no forfeiture of that bond may be set aside for any reason.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) (2003) (emphasis added).\nThe record in the present case clearly shows that Poteat failed to appear in court as directed on at least two occasions, those being 25 September 1995 and 11 December 2001, before Mathis executed an appearance bond securing Poteat\u2019s appearance on 30 September 2002, and that Poteat subsequently failed to appear in court on that date as well, resulting in forfeiture of the bond executed by Mathis. Because Mathis maintains that he was not aware of these two prior failures to appear before he executed the appearance bond at issue herein, we must determine whether the type of \u201cnotice\u201d contemplated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) includes constructive notice. We conclude that it does.\nIn defining \u201cnotice,\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary provides that \u201cnotice\u201d may be either \u201cactual, which brings the knowledge of a fact directly home to the party[,]\u201d or \u201cconstructive,\u201d which is defined as \u201cinformation or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a person (although he may not actually have it), because he could have discovered the fact by proper diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1061-62 (6th ed. 1990).\n\u201cThe cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature is controlling.\u201d Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 494, 467 S.E.2d 34, 41 (1996). Adopting Mathis\u2019 interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) as requiring only actual notice would render the statute\u2019s language concerning \u201cactual knowledge\u201d redundant and superfluous, and'it is \u201ca well settled principle of statutory construction that words of a statute are not to be deemed merely redundant if they can reasonably be construed so as to add something to the statute which is in harmony with its purpose.\u201d In Re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 634, 161 S.E.2d 1, 6-7 (1968). \u201cThe purpose of [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544] is to regulate the forfeiture of bonds in criminal proceedings and to establish \u2018an orderly procedure for forfeiture.\u2019 \u201d State v. Cox, 90 N.C. App. 742, 744, 370 S.E.2d 260, 261 (1988) (quoting State v. Moore, 57 N.C. App. 676, 678, 292 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1982).\nWe conclude that construing the term \u201cnotice\u201d in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) to include constructive, as well as actual, notice is in harmony with this statute\u2019s purpose. In the present case, when Mathis executed the appearance bond for Poteat in Mecklenburg County on 12 September 2002, the release order issued on 6 September 2002 upon Poteat\u2019s arrest in Mecklenburg County was available for Mathis\u2019 review as part of Poteat\u2019s Mecklenburg County court file. As noted above, this release order contained the notations \u201cDWLR\u201d and \u201cOFA/FTA\u201d in the section of the release order labeled \u201cOffense(s).\u201d A professional bondsman such as Mathis should reasonably be expected to understand an \u201cOFA/FTA\u201d notation on a release order as standing for \u201corder for arrest/failure to appear.\u201d Mathis, especially in light of his status as a professional bondsman, could have discovered the 6 September 2002 release order by exercising proper diligence. Further, upon discovering that Poteat had at least one prior failure to appear, Mathis through the exercise of proper diligence could have readily discovered the earlier bond forfeiture notices, arrest warrants, and orders for Poteat\u2019s arrest, any of which would have indicated that Poteat had a second prior failure to appear. These are all public documents and were all part of Poteat\u2019s Alamance County court file. Mathis\u2019 situation as a professional bondsman, albeit one who writes bonds primarily in Mecklenburg and Union counties, cast upon him the duty of inquiring further into this matter\u2019s Alamance County background before executing the appearance bond at issue. Mathis\u2019 first assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his second assignment of error, Mathis asserts that because Poteat was directed to appear in court on 25 September 1995 by citation and was not then under bond, his failure to appear on that date should not count as a \u201cfail[ure] to appear on two or more prior occasions\u201d for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f). Mathis argues that the statute is only intended to cover failures to appear which occur upon forfeiture of a bond. However, the statute\u2019s plain language states only that the State must prove that the defendant \u201chad already failed to appear on two or more prior occasions\u201d before forfeiture of the bond becomes absolute. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f). When construing a statute, the words are to be given their ordinary meaning, unless it appears from the context that they should be used in a different sense. Jordan v. Central Piedmont Community College, 124 N.C. App. 112, 116, 476 S.E.2d 410, 412 (1996), disc. review denied, 345 N.C. 753, 485 S.E.2d 53-54 (1997). Mathis correctly notes that the subsection title of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) is \u201cNo More Than Two Forfeitures May Be Set Aside Per Case[;]\u201d however, our Supreme Court has stated that \u201cthe language of the title is not permitted to control expressions in the body of a statute that conflict with it.\u201d State v. Bell, 184 N.C. 701, 707, 115 S.E. 190, 193 (1922). Mathis\u2019 second assignment of error is overruled.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McCULLOUGH and BRYANT concur.\n. The record on appeal is silent as to what action, if any, was taken regarding the charges pending against Poteat, or his failure to appear regarding same, between 8 June 2001 and 11 December 2001.\n. The Alamance-Burlington Board of Education\u2019s posture as the appellee in the instant appeal is due to its status as the ultimate recipient of the \u201cclear proceeds\u201d of the forfeited appearance bond at issue herein, pursuant to Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Aaron E. Michel for bondsman-appellant.", "David K. Holley for appellee Alamance-Burlington Board of Education." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFREY CRAIG POTEAT, Defendant\nNo. COA03-764\n(Filed 20 April 2004)\n1. Bail and Pretrial Release\u2014 bond forfeiture \u2014 motion to set aside \u2014 constructive notice\nThe trial court did not err by denying a professional bail bondsman\u2019s motion to set aside forfeiture of an appearance bond he posted on behalf of defendant for the purpose of securing defendant\u2019s appearance in court to answer charges of driving while license revoked and failure to appear, because: (1) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) does not require that a surety or bail agent have actual, rather than constructive, notice that a defendant has failed to appear on two or more prior occasions before the surety is precluded from having the forfeiture set aside; (2) a professional bondsman should reasonably be expected to understand an \u201cOFA/FTA\u201d notation on a release order as standing for \u201corder for arrest/failure to appear,\u201d and the bondsman could have discovered the earlier bond forfeiture notices, arrest warrants and arrest orders by exercising proper diligence; and (3) the professional bondsman had a duty of inquiring further into the background of this matter before executing the appearance bond at issue.\n2. Bail and Pretrial Release\u2014 bond forfeiture \u2014 motion to set aside \u2014 prior failures to appear\nThe trial court did not err in a driving while license revoked and failure to appear case by finding that defendant had two prior failures to appear and by denying a professional bail bondsman\u2019s motion to set aside the bond forfeiture on this basis even though the bondsman contends that defendant\u2019s failure to appear on 25 September 1995 by citation instead of under a bond should not count as a \u201cfailure to appear on two or more prior occasions\u201d for purposes of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f), because: (1) the plain language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.5(f) provides only that the State must prove that defendant had already failed to appear on two or more prior occasions before forfeiture of the bond becomes absolute; and (2) even though the bondsman correctly notes that the subsection title of the statute states \u201cNo More Than Two Forfeitures May Be Set Aside Per Case,\u201d the language of the title of a statute is not permitted to control expressions in the body of a statute that conflict with it.\nAppeal by bondsman-appellant from order denying motion to set aside forfeiture of a bail bond entered 21 April 2003 by Judge Donald W. Stephens in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 March 2004.\nAaron E. Michel for bondsman-appellant.\nDavid K. Holley for appellee Alamance-Burlington Board of Education." }, "file_name": "0741-01", "first_page_order": 771, "last_page_order": 777 }