{
  "id": 8301358,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY NEAVE HOLLARS, Defendant, SURETY: DAVID FRALEY-BRADSHAW'S BONDING CO., agent for RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY; JUDGMENT CREDITOR: WATAUGA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hollars",
  "decision_date": "2006-03-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-1347",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 N.C. App. 571"
    }
  ],
  "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": "360 S.E.2d 103",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 637",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4725572,
        4730441,
        4724404,
        4726682,
        4730811
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0637-03",
        "/nc/320/0637-04",
        "/nc/320/0637-01",
        "/nc/320/0637-02",
        "/nc/320/0637-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 S.E.2d 802",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "804"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12125748
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "199"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E.2d 2",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "7",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 7 Strong's N.C. Index 2d, Statutes, \u00a7 5"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560662
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 7 Strong's N.C. Index 2d, Statutes, \u00a7 5"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S.E.2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "132"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626685
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "721"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0716-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 S.E.2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "700",
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Hickerson, 235 N.C. 716, 721, 71 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1952"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9249165
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "224",
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Hickerson, 235 N.C. 716, 721, 71 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1952"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 S.E.2d 459",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "461",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes \u00a7 363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622885
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "442",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes \u00a7 363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "436 S.E.2d 369",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2527438
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 S.E.2d 310",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "313"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2531487
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4763743
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 458,
    "char_count": 8451,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.59502144459117e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40335826528882573
    },
    "sha256": "185cc06a4b8350fd1996fdb19f34dfdb7b3d184b8a2608a6be9eab0decc0ec73",
    "simhash": "1:a83b97fa44eb7b1f",
    "word_count": 1400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:49.892129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEELMAN and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY NEAVE HOLLARS, Defendant, SURETY: DAVID FRALEY-BRADSHAW\u2019S BONDING CO., agent for RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY; JUDGMENT CREDITOR: WATAUGA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nGary Neave Hollars (\u201cdefendant\u201d) was arrested on drug charges in Watauga County, North Carolina in October 2003. A $12,000 secured bond was arranged through the agent of Ranger Insurance Co. (\u201cSurety\u201d) and defendant was released from pretrial confinement. Defendant failed to appear at a scheduled court date on \u00cd9 November 2003, at which time a warrant was issued for his arrest and a Bond Forfeiture Notice was issued to Surety. The final judgment date of the bond forfeiture was 18 April 2004.\nDefendant was arrested in Johnson County, Tennessee on 11 February 2004 on new drug charges in addition to the charge of being a fugitive from justice based upon the outstanding warrant from North Carolina. Defendant waived extradition to North Carolina. Surety\u2019s agent, upon discovery of defendant\u2019s whereabouts, appeared in person in Johnson County, Tennessee on 14 April 2004 and surrendered custody of defendant to a custodian of the Johnson County jail. On the same date, Surety\u2019s agent filed a motion with the Watauga County Clerk of Superior Court, on behalf of Surety, to set aside the bond forfeiture. Surety\u2019s motion was based upon the surrender of defendant to the sheriff of Johnson County, Tennessee pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-540 (2003). A \u201cSurrender of Defendant by Surety\u201d form, executed by the custodian at the Johnson County jail, was attached to the motion.\nThe Watauga County School Board ( the \u201cSchool Board\u201d) objected to Surety\u2019s motion to set aside the bond forfeiture. The motion was denied by Chief District Court Judge Alexander Lyerly on 12 May 2004. The order denying Surety\u2019s motion was filed on 24 June 2004. Surety gave notice of appeal on 23 July 2004.\nSurety argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to set aside the bond forfeiture as defendant was surrendered in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-540(b) prior to the final judgment date of bond forfeiture. We do not agree.\nIn construing statutes, courts must effectuate the intent of the General Assembly, which is determined by \u201cthe language of the statute, the spirit of the statute, and what it seeks to accomplish.\u201d State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff, 309 N.C. 195, 210, 306 S.E.2d 435, 444 (1983). Surety argues that the surrender of defendant to the Johnson County, Tennessee sheriff complied with statutory provisions and, therefore, it is entitled to have the forfeiture set aside. The School Board argues that Surety\u2019s surrender of defendant to the Tennessee sheriff failed to comply with the statutory requirements for setting aside a bond forfeiture as such a surrender may be accomplished only by a surrender to a North Carolina sheriff. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether our legislature intended that only the surrender of a defendant to a North Carolina sheriff would suffice for a bond forfeiture to be set aside or whether a defendant may be surrendered to a sheriff in another state.\nAfter defendant missed a scheduled court appearance on 19 November 2003, bond forfeiture was entered. The Bond Forfeiture Notice was served upon defendant and Surety on 20 November 2003. This notice advised defendant and Surety that the forfeiture will be set aside if satisfactory evidence is presented to the court that:\nthe defendant has been surrendered by a surety or bail agent to a sheriff of this State as provided by law.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.3(b)(9)(iii) (emphasis added).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5(b)(3) allows a forfeiture to be set aside if \u201c[t]he defendant has been surrendered by a surety on the bail bond as provided by G.S. 15A-540, as evidenced by the sheriffs receipt provided for in that section.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-540(b) discusses the surrender of a defendant by a surety after a breach of his conditions of release. It first states that after arresting a defendant, the surety may surrender him \u201cto the sheriff of the county in which the defendant is bonded to appear or to the sheriff where the defendant was bonded.\u201d Clearly these provisions contemplate surrender to a North Carolina sheriff.\nThis statute goes on to state:\nAlternatively, a surety may surrender a defendant who is already in the custody of any sheriff by appearing in person and informing the sheriff that the surety wishes to surrender the defendant.\nThis provision must be read in conjunction with the prior provisions of \u00a7 15A-540(b) and with \u00a7 15A-544.3(b)(9), which contemplate surrender to a North Carolina sheriff. \u201cStatutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia and harmonized, if possible, to give effect to each.\u201d Board of Adjust. v. Town of Swansboro, 334 N.C. 421, 427, 432 S.E.2d 310, 313, reh\u2019ing denied, 335 N.C. 182, 436 S.E.2d 369 (1993). \u201c \u2018[T]he various provisions of an act should be read so that all may, if possible, have their due and conjoint effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent and harmonious whole.\u2019 \u201d Walker v. American Bakeries Co., 234 N.C. 440, 442, 67 S.E.2d 459, 461 (1951) (quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes \u00a7 363). \u201cPortions of the same statute dealing with the same subject matter are \u2018to be considered and interpreted as a whole, and in such case it is the accepted principle of statutory construction that every part of the law shall be given effect if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment . . . \u201d Huntington Properties, LLC v. Currituck County, 153 N.C. App. 218, 224, 569 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2002) (quoting In re Hickerson, 235 N.C. 716, 721, 71 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1952).\nSurety contends that \u201cany sheriff\u2019 means not any sheriff in North Carolina, but any sheriff anywhere in the United States, or possibly in any foreign country. Clearly, this was not the intent of the legislature. In determining legislative intent, \u201c[w]ords and phrases of a statute \u2018must be construed as a part of the composite whole and accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the act will permit.\u2019 \u201d Underwood v. Howland, 274 N.C. 473, 479, 164 S.E.2d 2, 7 (1968) (quoting 7 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 2d, Statutes, \u00a7 5). The clear intent of both statutes was to require surrender to a North Carolina sheriff. Surety\u2019s contention ignores the express language of the Bond Forfeiture Notice in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.3(b)(9)(iii), which plainly instructs Surety to deliver defendant to a \u201csheriff of this State.\u201d Further, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-540(b) only makes reference to North Carolina sheriffs, both in the county where the defendant is or was bonded, and outside of that county. These provisions should be interpreted as a composite whole to reflect the clear legislative intent that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-540(b) deals solely with surrender within North Carolina.\nThis statutory interpretation also reinforces the purpose of bail, which is to \u201csecure the appearance of the principal in court as required.\u201d State v. Vikre, 86 N.C. App. 196, 199, 356 S.E.2d 802, 804, disc. review denied, 320 N.C. 637, 360 S.E.2d 103 (1987). This purpose would be frustrated if a principal is allowed to be delivered to the sheriff of another state outside of the jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts where the defendant may never be returned to North Carolina to appear in court.\nAffirmed.\nJudges STEELMAN and JACKSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUDSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steven M. Carlson, for surety-appellant.",
      "Miller & Johnson, P.L.L.C., by Linda L. Johnson, for judgment creditor-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY NEAVE HOLLARS, Defendant, SURETY: DAVID FRALEY-BRADSHAW\u2019S BONDING CO., agent for RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY; JUDGMENT CREDITOR: WATAUGA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION\nNo. COA04-1347\n(Filed 7 March 2006)\nBail and Pretrial Release\u2014 forfeiture \u2014 defendant surrendered to Tennessee jail\nThere is a clear legislative intent that a nonappearing defendant be surrendered to a North Carolina sheriff before a bond forfeiture is set aside. The trial court here correctly denied a surety\u2019s motion to set aside a bond forfeiture which occurred when defendant failed to appear on drug charges in Watauga County and was later surrendered to the Johnson County, Tennessee jail by the surety\u2019s agent. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-540(b).\nAppeal by agent, David Fraley-Bradshaw\u2019s Bonding Co., for Surety, Ranger Insurance Company from Order Denying Bond Forfeiture entered 24 June 2004 by Judge Alexander Lyerly in the District Court in Watauga County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2005.\nSteven M. Carlson, for surety-appellant.\nMiller & Johnson, P.L.L.C., by Linda L. Johnson, for judgment creditor-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 606
}