Judge signals likely bond forfeiture after defendant fails to appear

Judge Stephanie Boyd recalled the case of State v. Anthony Ruben Rodriguez and confirmed that the defendant had missed the Jan. 20 setting and did not respond to the court’s January 29 docket call. The court asked defense counsel whether the defendant was in custody; defense and court staff reported they had been unable to contact him and that the phone number on file was not working.

The judge directed the bondsman be contacted and warned that the court would “grant the motion, issue a bond forfeiture” if a satisfactory explanation did not arrive, but said the court would reconsider if a valid reason for the absence were presented. Court staff were asked to announce the defendant in the hallway and call the bondsman during the session.

The court characterized the matter as a recalled case to give the defense another opportunity to locate the defendant and to permit the bondsman to respond. The judge instructed that if the bondsman can be reached and demonstrates cause for the no‑show, the court may set aside forfeiture; if not, forfeiture procedures will proceed.

No formal written bond‑forfeiture order was entered on the record during the session; the court instead issued a judicial direction to pursue contact with the bondsman and indicated the forfeiture motion would be granted absent an acceptable justification. The record shows the court set the procedural direction and left open reconsideration if new information were produced.