State v. Smith, 375 N.C. 224, 846 S.E.2d 492 (Jun. 16, 2020)

Because the trial court’s order setting aside a bond forfeiture failed to make material findings of fact, conclusions of law, or any ruling as to whether a bail agent’s motion to set aside the forfeiture should be considered and set aside under G.S. 15A-544.5(b)(7), rather than under subsection (b)(6), the court vacated the order and remanded for entry of a new order addressing this issue.  On 31 October 2018 the defendant failed to appear in Cumberland County Superior Court on two criminal charges.  It was undisputed that the defendant was in federal custody in Virginia on that date.  After a Bond Forfeiture Notice was issued, the bail agent filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture and checked Box 6 on AOC-CR-213, which corresponds to G.S. 15A-544.5(b)(6), indicating that the basis for the motion was that the defendant was incarcerated within the borders of North Carolina.  As developed at a hearing on the motion, it appeared that the bail agent meant to check Box 7 of AOC-CR-213, which corresponds to G.S. 15A-544.5(b)(7) (generally providing as a basis for a motion to set aside that the defendant was incarcerated anywhere within the borders of the United States).  It also appeared that the trial court may have intended to treat the motion as one under subsection (b)(7) and to grant relief under that subsection.  The order drafted by the school board’s attorney and signed by the trial court did not reflect this apparent intent.  As entered, the order failed to identify a permissible ground for setting aside the bond forfeiture under G.S. 15A-544.5(b) and the court vacated the order for that reason and remanded for additional findings and a determination on the subsection (b)(7) issue.