{
  "id": 8158078,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAIL BAKRI, Defendant and HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Surety",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bakri",
  "decision_date": "2007-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA06-1331",
  "first_page": "467",
  "last_page": "471",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. App. 467"
    }
  ],
  "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": "645 S.E.2d 156",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638447
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "157",
          "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/645/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "616 S.E.2d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633602
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "636",
          "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/616/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. App. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8205276
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "650",
          "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/183/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. App. 821",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8321643
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "825",
          "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/172/0821-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 432,
    "char_count": 7945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20094569220058775
    },
    "sha256": "4c69101d8959bc370ccb1baaf1ae91ae1c69d121163a8f90b4282b5cbd714612",
    "simhash": "1:0bebf3e07c5f8bec",
    "word_count": 1292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:40.090074+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER and GEER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAIL BAKRI, Defendant and HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Surety"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nOn 21 January 2004, Wail Bakri (defendant) was charged with two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine. He posted a $100,000.00 bond, on which Harco National Insurance Company (the surety) acted as surety. Defendant failed to appear for his court date and the bond was therefore forfeited. The forfeiture became final on 15 January 2005.\nThe surety began a search for defendant, eventually locating him in Florida in November, 2005. The surety\u2019s recovery agent requested the local authorities\u2019 assistance in apprehending defendant, and on 18 November 2005, the Volusia County Sheriff\u2019s Office arrested defendant. However, because defendant had no outstanding North Carolina warrants in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, the Volusia County officials transported defendant to New Jersey, where he did have outstanding warrants. Tim Fitzpatrick, the surety\u2019s recovery manager, contacted Ann Kirby, an Assistant District Attorney for Johnston County, and requested that she arrange for defendant\u2019s extradition from New Jersey. Although the surety agreed to pay the costs of the extradition, no funds were ever presented to Johnston County.\nThe Johnston County District Attorney\u2019s Office never instituted extradition proceedings, and defendant was eventually sentenced to seven years in New Jersey State prison.\nOn 17 March 2006, the surety filed a motion for relief from judgment, seeking to have its bond repaid. On 11 May 2006, the trial court entered an order denying the surety\u2019s motion. It is from this order that the surety now appeals.\nThe surety first contends that the trial court\u2019s failure to include certain facts in its findings of fact violated Rule 52 of our Rules of Civil Procedure. We disagree.\nRule 52(a) states, in pertinent part:\n(a) Findings.\u2014\n(1) In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.\n(3) If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 52 (2005).\nIn its brief, the surety specifically claims that the trial court \u201cignored\u201d Fitzpatrick\u2019s testimony and affidavit, which stated that Kirby agreed that she would extradite defendant if the surety paid for it and that the surety then agreed to do so. However, in its finding of fact no. 15, the trial court stated, \u201cTimothy Fitzpatrick offered to pay for the extradition of the defendant but no monies were ever tendered to the District Attorney\u2019s Office or any other arrangements made for the extradition.\u201d We hold that this finding of fact encompasses the facts that the surety alleges the trial court \u201cignored.\u201d\nLikewise, the surety\u2019s claim that the trial court \u201cignored\u201d Kirby\u2019s testimony is without merit. The surety takes pains to establish that according to Kirby\u2019s notes, she and the surety agreed that \u201csurety will pay for extradition.\u201d Again, we hold that the trial court did, in fact, address these facts. As we have noted, the trial court specifically stated that despite the alleged agreement as to which party would pay for the extradition, no monies were tendered. Additionally, the trial court found that despite Kirby\u2019s notes, she felt that she did not have a duty to enter defendant\u2019s name into the system. The surety\u2019s first argument is without merit.\nThe surety also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the surety\u2019s motion because it failed to find that the District Attorney\u2019s Office breached a promise to have defendant extradited. The surety claims that this alleged breach constituted \u201cextraordinary circumstances\u201d as required by statute. Even were we to agree that the facts support the surety\u2019s claim of breach, this contention would be without merit.\nIt is uncontested that there was a final judgment of forfeiture of the bond in this case. Accordingly,\n[t]he court may grant the defendant or any surety named in the judgment relief from the judgment, for the following reasons, and none other:\n(1) The person seeking relief was not given notice as provided in G.S. 15A-544.4.\n(2) Other extraordinary circumstances exist that the court, in its discretion, determines should entitle that person to relief.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.8(b) (2005). The surety assigns no error to the notice it received. It may therefore assert error only as to the trial court\u2019s discretionary finding that no extraordinary circumstances existed.\nWe again note that the trial court addressed the alleged agreement to extradite in its findings of fact, stating, \u201cTimothy Fitzpatrick offered to pay for the extradition of the defendant but no monies were ever tendered to the District Attorney\u2019s Office or any other arrangements made for the extradition.\u201d It is clear to this Court that an offer to pay for the extradition, by itself, is insufficient to form an agreement. Even assuming that Kirby accepted the offer, which is not clear on the record before this Court, the trial court specifically noted that the surety did not, in fact, tender payment for the extradition. \u201c \u2018Extraordinary circumstances\u2019 in the context of bond forfeiture has been defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, common, or customary ... of, relating to, or having the nature of an occurrence or risk of a kind other than what ordinary experience or prudence would foresee.\u201d State v. Edwards, 172 N.C. App. 821, 825, 616 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2005) (quotations and citations omitted) (alteration in original). The surety took on the risk that defendant would not appear in court. He did not. Surety now seeks to transfer that risk to the State based on an alleged agreement. However, merely making an offer to pay for extradition is hardly \u201cextraordinary.\u201d\nEqually important, we note that the surety has not assigned error to the trial court\u2019s finding of fact no. 21, which states \u201c[t]hat nowhere in the [surety\u2019s] motion for relief from judgment was there any allegation of extraordinary circumstance under the statute to justify remission of [the] bond.\u201d \u201cFindings of fact to which no error is assigned are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.\u201d Pascoe v. Pascoe, 183 N.C. App. 648, 650, 645 S.E.2d 156, 157 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.\nHaving conducted a thorough review of the record, we affirm the order of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and GEER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ELMORE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling, by James R. Lawrence, Jr., and Woodruff, Reece & Fortner, by Gordon C. Woodruff and Michael J. Reece, for the Johnston County Board of Education.",
      "Andresen & Associates, by Kenneth P. Andresen, for surety."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAIL BAKRI, Defendant and HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Surety\nNo. COA06-1331\n(Filed 16 October 2007)\n1. Bail and Pretrial Release\u2014 findings \u2014 surety\u2019s offer to pay for extradition\nThe trial court addressed the facts as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 52 in a case in which a bail bond surety moved for relief from forfeit of the bond. A finding by the court concerning the surety\u2019s offer to pay for the extradition of a defendant encompassed the facts which the surety alleged the court had ignored.\n2. Bail and Pretrial Release\u2014 bail bond \u2014 surety\u2019s motion to have bond repaid \u2014 denial not an abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a surety\u2019s motion to have a forfeited bond repaid. It is uncontested that there was a final judgment of forfeiture, and merely offering to pay for extradition hardly constitutes the extraordinary circumstances required for remission of the bond.\nAppeal by surety from order entered 11 May 2006 by Judge Knox V. Jenkins in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 May 2007.\nDaughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling, by James R. Lawrence, Jr., and Woodruff, Reece & Fortner, by Gordon C. Woodruff and Michael J. Reece, for the Johnston County Board of Education.\nAndresen & Associates, by Kenneth P. Andresen, for surety."
  },
  "file_name": "0467-01",
  "first_page_order": 497,
  "last_page_order": 501
}
