If a commercial surety company’s bond-forfeiture judgment is still unpaid after the defendant fails to appear, the prosecutor may ask the court to bar the company from posting criminal bail undertakings, and the court may issue that order if specified conditions are met.
§85. Failure to satisfy judgment of bond forfeiture A. If a defendant fails to appear after January 1, 2017, and a judgment of bond forfeiture rendered against a commercial surety company has not been satisfied, nor has a suspensive appeal been timely perfected, the prosecuting attorney may file with the court, in the parish where the bail undertaking is forfeited, a rule to show cause why that commercial surety company should not be prohibited from executing criminal bail undertakings before the court issuing the judgment of bond forfeiture. B. At the rule to show cause, the court may consider only issues which would interrupt the enforceability of the judgment. The court may issue an order enjoining the commercial surety company from posting criminal bail undertakings before the court issuing the judgment of bond forfeiture if the judgment has not been satisfied within ten days and if the court finds all of the following: (1) A defendant failed to appear after January 1, 2017, and a judgment of bond forfeiture has been rendered against the commercial surety. (2) Proper notice pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 339 has been mailed. (3) The defendant has not been surrendered, constructively surrendered, nor appeared within one hundred eighty days of the execution of the certificate that notice of warrant for arrest was sent. (4) The time delays for taking a suspensive appeal, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Article 2123, have run and no suspensive appeal has been taken. (5) The judgment of bond forfeiture has not been satisfied by payment. C. The burden of proof at the hearing shall be upon the commercial surety by a preponderance of evidence and shall be limited to documents contained in the official court record where the judgment was rendered. The surety company may use evidence not contained in the record to show that it did not receive notice of the signing of the judgment of bond forfeiture. Acts 1966, No. 311 §2, eff. Jan. 1, 1967. Amended by Acts 1976, No. 579, §1; Acts 1979, No. 786, §1; Acts 1980, No. 639, §1; Acts 1982, No. 357, §1; Acts 1987, No. 728, §2; Acts 1987, No. 923, §1; Acts 1989, No. 191, §1; Acts 1990, No. 92, §1; Acts 1990, No. 520, §1; Acts 1993, No. 834, §4, eff. June 22, 1993; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 52, §3, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, No. 813, §1; Acts 1997, No. 815, §1; Acts 2001, No. 107, §1; Acts 2006, No. 466, §1, eff. June 15, 2006; Acts 2006, No. 699, §1; Acts 2006, No. 735, §1; Acts 2008, No. 415, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 2009; Acts 2010, No. 710, §2; Acts 2010, No. 914, §3; Acts 2016, No. 613, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 2017. NOTE: Section 2 of Acts 2006, No. 699, provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply only to actions filed on or after Aug. 15, 2006. Actions pending before Aug. 15, 2006, shall be governed by prior law.