IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
DECEMBER 1995 SESSION
July 5, 1996
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
) No. 01-C-01-9505-CR-00135
)
IN RE: PETITION OF DANNY ) Sumner County
BLANKENSHIP BONDING COMPANY )
) Jane W. Wheatcraft, Judge
)
) (Application to Write Bail Bonds)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Matt Q. Bastian Charles W. Burson
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
505 Main Street, East 450 James Robertson Parkway
Hendersonville, TN 37075 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Darian B. Taylor
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Lawrence Ray Whitley
District Attorney General
113 Main Street, East
Gallatin, TN 37066
OPINION FILED:___________________________________
AFFIRMED
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Danny A. Blankenship, doing business as Danny Blankenship
Bonding Company, sought permission from the trial court to write bail bonds in Sumner
County. The proposed resident representative of the company in Sumner County was the
appellant, Glen M. Davis. In the event Davis was not available to write a bond, the
proposed substitute was Richard L. Gregory, an employee of the bonding company and
also an appellant in this case. The trial court denied the application because Blankenship
did not possess sufficient personal assets to support his company’s writing of bail bonds
in the general sessions and criminal courts of Sumner County. The appellants appeal as
of right from this judgment. Since the evidence supports the findings made by the trial
court, the judgment is affirmed.
The standard of review in these cases is de novo. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-125(d).
Usually, the findings of fact made by the trial court are presumed to be correct unless the
evidence contained in the record preponderates against these findings. When, as here,
the findings of fact made by the trial court are based exclusively upon written records, the
presumption of correctness does not apply. This Court, like the trial court, can analyze the
records and reach its own conclusions since the trial court was not required to view the
manner and demeanor of the witnesses and assess each witness’s credibility.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. When the hearing was concluded,
the trial court found that the evidence was "adequate to allow the petition to be granted."
However, the court wanted additional information concerning Blankenship and Gregory.
He required that they furnish a certificate from the State of Tennessee that the surety
company had complied with the laws of Tennessee and was authorized to do business in
Tennessee. Blankenship and Gregory were required to obtain certificates from the trial
court and the clerk in the respective judicial districts where they lived and wrote bonds
stating that they did not have criminal records, there were no outstanding civil judgments
against them, and a recommendation as to their respective characters. The judge also
required Blankenship to provide a financial statement and a list of all outstanding bonds
that were written by the company.
1
Blankenship and Gregory complied with the requirements mandated by the trial
court. The record reflects that the surety company was authorized to do business in
Tennessee. The surety company furnished each person, Blankenship, Gregory, and
Davis, with a bond power of $100,000 for the writing of bail bonds in Sumner County. Both
Blankenship and Gregory furnished the requisite certificates, which were favorable to them.
Blankenship furnished a financial statement documenting a modest net worth. He also
furnished two lists, one from each judicial district where his bonding company did business,
showing outstanding bail bonds totalling $278,800. The record does not establish the bond
powers issued by the surety in these two judicial districts.
This Court agrees that Blankenship’s net worth is insufficient to support the writing
of bail bonds in another judicial district. Assuming arguendo that the bond power issued
by the surety is $100,000 in the judicial district where approximately $226,500 in bail bonds
were outstanding, Blankenship's potential personal liability far exceeded his net worth. If
permitted to write bail bonds over a period of time in Sumner County, the aggregate
amount of the bail bonds may exceed the limit of $100,000. As a result, Blankenship
would not be able to satisfy the obligations given his net worth.
________________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
________________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
2