Alice M Flowers v. State of Indiana

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Alice M. Flowers, FILED Appellant-Bail Agent, Jan 28 2025, 9:40 am

CLERK v. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 28, 2025

Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-1219

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court

The Honorable Michael S. Bergerson, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-2106-F4-26

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 1 of 8

Opinion by Senior Judge Robb Judges Bailey and Bradford concur.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Alice M. Flowers, the bail agent, appeals from the trial court’s order to forfeit

the surety bond posted for the defendant in this case. Flowers argues that

because the trial court had previously ordered the bond revoked, it cannot now

order the bond forfeited. We disagree and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 29, 2021, Albert G. McCaleb was arrested on three counts and placed

in the custody of the Tippecanoe County Jail. On July 13, Roche Surety and

Casualty Company, Inc., posted a $15,000 surety bond for McCaleb and

appointed Flowers as the bail agent. [3] On September 17, 2021, McCaleb appeared in person for a hearing in this case,

at which time the trial court scheduled an additional hearing for December 17.

McCaleb ultimately failed to appear for the December 17 hearing, and the trial

court issued two orders: (1) an order revoking McCaleb’s bond and directing

the Clerk to issue a warrant for McCaleb’s arrest, and (2) an order for Roche

Surety and Flowers to produce McCaleb. McCaleb never appeared.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 2 of 8 [4] Over two years later, on March 25, 2024, the State filed a motion for bond

forfeiture, which the trial court set for a hearing on April 29. In response,

Flowers filed a motion to quash the State’s motion. Following the April 29

hearing, the trial court issued an order to forfeit the surety bond. This appeal

ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Flowers appeals from the trial court’s order to forfeit the surety bond. We begin

by noting that Flowers is pro se. “A litigant is not given special consideration

by virtue of [her] pro se status.” Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2021). “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal

standards as licensed attorneys.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2016), reh’g denied. Specifically, “pro se litigants are bound to follow the

established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences 1 of their failure to do so.” Id. at 983-84.

[6] Current Indiana case law does not set forth a standard of review for a ruling on

a bond forfeiture motion. However, a ruling on the similar “motion for release

from a bail bond” is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. O’Connor v. State,

173 N.E.3d 719, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021); Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. State, 750

1 With these well-settled principles in mind, we note that Flowers did not initially request a transcript of the April 29 hearing. Thus, we do not have a transcript to review. However, a close examination of the parties’ briefs and appendices, as well as the bond forfeiture statute, leads us to conclude that a transcript is not necessary to decide the merits of this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 3 of 8

N.E.2d 865, 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). And this Court has long held that

another similar motion to “withhold declaring a forfeiture” of a bond is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Scholl v. State, 170 N.E. 343, 344 (Ind.

App. 1930). For clarity, today we formally adopt the abuse of discretion

standard of review for a ruling on a bond forfeiture motion. “An abuse of

discretion occurs only when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic

and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” O’Connor, 173 N.E.3d at

721. [7] Indiana Code section 27-10-2-12 (2013) outlines the procedure for a bond

forfeiture. If a defendant does not appear, the trial court shall issue (1) a

warrant for the defendant’s arrest and (2) an order for the bail agent and the

surety to surrender the defendant. Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12(a)(1). Then, the

clerk shall mail notice of the order to the bail agent and the surety within thirty

days of the defendant’s failure to appear. Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12(a)(2). [8] Notably, this subsection has no bearing on the trial court’s ability to revoke a

bond. Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12(a). Stated another way, bond revocation and

bond forfeiture are separate actions and operate independently of one another.

One purpose of a bail bond is to ensure the defendant’s appearance at legal

proceedings. Ind. Code § 35-33-8-1 (1996). Bond revocation is the process of

terminating the defendant’s conditional release and compelling him to reappear

in court in person because he has violated conditions of his release while out on

bond. Ind. Code § 35-33-8-5(d) (2017). In other words, bond revocation is the

surrender of the defendant’s person. On the other hand, bond forfeiture is the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 4 of 8

surrender of the funds posted to represent the defendant’s promise to return for

proceedings in his case. See Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12. [9] On September 17, McCaleb, no longer in custody, appeared in person for a

hearing and was given notice of a subsequent hearing on December 17. When

McCaleb failed to appear for the December 17 hearing, the trial court revoked

his bond, issued a warrant for his arrest, and ordered Flowers and Roche Surety

to produce him pursuant to Subsection 27-10-2-12 (a)(1). On December 23,

notice was sent to Flowers and Roche Surety as required by Subsection 27-10-2-

12(a)(2). These actions triggered the next subsection of the statute:

(b) The bail agent or surety must:

(1) produce the defendant; or

(2) prove within three hundred sixty-five (365) days:

(A) that the appearance of the defendant was prevented:

(i) by the defendant’s illness or death;

(ii) because the defendant was at the scheduled time of appearance or currently is in the custody of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision of the United States or a state;

(iii) because the required notice was not given; or

(iv) because authorities have refused to extradite the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence; and Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 5 of 8

(B) the defendant’s absence was not with the consent or connivance of the sureties.

Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12(b). [10] In response, Flowers neither produced McCaleb nor made any proof to the trial

court of her efforts to locate him within 365 days. Instead, her first action in

this case was to file a motion to quash the State’s motion for bond forfeiture,

which was filed over two years later. Flowers argued, “The State of Indiana

has no authority to forfeit a bond that has been previously revoked two years

prior.” Appellee’s App. Vol. 2, p. 27 (emphasis omitted). But she made no

mention of any efforts to locate McCaleb or to produce him as required by the

statute. [11] Following the hearing on the State’s motion for bond forfeiture, the trial court

issued an order to forfeit the surety bond, finding in relevant part, “[Flowers]

failed to produce [McCaleb]” and “failed to present evidence that demonstrates 2 [she] made diligent efforts to locate [McCaleb].” Appellee’s App. Vol. 2, p. 44.

[12] We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. Under the statute, Flowers

had only 365 days to justify McCaleb’s absence. See Ind. Code § 27-10-2-

2 The trial court correctly entered judgment against Flowers in the sum of $15,000, which is the total face value of the bond. Under subsection (c)(5), if the bail agent does not comply with subsection (b) within 365 days of the mailing of the notice, she is assessed a late surrender fee totaling eighty percent of the bond’s face value. Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12. And under subsection (d), if the bail agent does not comply with subsection (b) within 365 days of the mailing of the notice, the court automatically declares a forfeiture totaling twenty percent of the bond’s face value. Ind. Code § 27-10-2-12. Thus, the final judgment consists of the late surrender fee and the forfeited portion of the bond, and equals the total face value of the bond.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 6 of 8

12(b)(2). A close examination of the record reveals that in the 365 days

following the mailing of the notice, Flowers did not prove McCaleb’s

appearance was prevented, nor did she prove his absence was without her

consent. In fact, the only docket entries made between the December 2021

warrant and order and the March 2024 motion for bond forfeiture concerned

the trial court’s (1) cancellation of a previously scheduled jury trial and (2)

withdrawal of McCaleb’s counsel. As Flowers concedes in her brief, there was

“[n]o activity in this case for[,] nearly, two years.” Appellant’s Br., p. 8

(emphasis omitted). Flowers had a duty to speak of McCaleb’s whereabouts,

but she remained silent, even long after the 365-day period had elapsed. Any

justification made following the 365-day period is irrelevant, and the bond is

subject to forfeiture. [13] On appeal, Flowers attempts to justify her delayed action by arguing that

because the trial court had previously ordered the bond revoked, it cannot now

order the bond forfeited. We disagree. A bond forfeiture proceeding is

unaffected by and operates independently of bond revocation. See Ind. Code §

27-10-2-12(a). As such, a prior bond revocation does not preclude a trial court

from later entering judgment for bond forfeiture.

Conclusion [14] The trial court’s decision to order the bond forfeited is not against the logic and

effect of the facts and circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion, and the bond forfeiture should be upheld.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 7 of 8 [15] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

APPELLANT PRO SE Alice M. Flowers Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1219 | January 28, 2025 Page 8 of 8