(concurring with the majority):
I concur, fully, in the majority opinion with additional comment.
The dissent eschews that portion of the record which sustains the trial judge’s estreatment of the bond.
It is correct that the Court’s Estreatment Order does not specifically cite Boatwright’s violation of the good behavior condition of his bond.
However, it is equally correct, in the colloquy between the Court and Fallaw, Boatwright’s bondsman, that the trial judge was fully cognizant of the violation and its impact upon the Court’s authority to estreat the bond, to wit:
Ass’t. Solicitor: ... the individual was initially on bond with Mr. Fallaw on a forgery charge, and before that charge was disposed of he was again arrested while he was out on bond for criminal domestic violence charge. He was placed back in jail...
The Court: That would be a violation of his bond though. Mr. Fallaw: Yes, sir.
The fact is you were on his bond and the condition of his bond is that he’ll be on good behavior and not violate the laws of this state, and he wasn’t on good behavior.
*285The Court finds that Robert Paul Boatwright was not in court when required to be and violated the condition of his bond by violating the law while Mr. Fallaw was on his bond. So the Court is going to estreat $1,250 which is one half, and that’s a full and final estreatment. I’ll let you off the hood [sic] for the other half of it. (Emphasis supplied.)
From the foregoing, it is clear that the judge considered both the failure to appear and the conviction for criminal domestic violence in determining to estreat the bond by only one-half.