After its principal failed to appear in court for a scheduled trial calendar call, Northeast Atlanta Surety Company appeals from the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion for forfeiture of an appearance bond and denying Northeast Atlanta Surety’s motion to dismiss the State’s motion. Specifically, Northeast Atlanta Surety argues that the trial court erred in finding that the State substantially complied with the notice requirement under OCGA § 17-6-71 a and in ordering the forfeiture of the bond despite the harm caused by the State’s delay in providing notice of the principal’s failure to appear. Because we find that the State substantially complied with the statute and that Northeast Atlanta Surety has not shown harm, we affirm. “This appeal presents a question of law, which we review de novo.” Punctuation omitted. Lokey v. Ga. Dept. of Driver Svcs. 1 The undisputed record shows that the principal in this case Jose Perales was indicted on one count of trafficking in methamphetamine and one count of trafficking in marijuana. Upon the principal’s motion, the trial court granted a bond for $100,000, and the principal entered into an appearance bond for $110,200 with Northeast Atlanta Surety. On December 4, 2007, the principal failed to appear for a scheduled trial calendar call. Consequently, on December 19, 2007, the State submitted a motion for bond forfeiture, and the trial court issued a bench warrant for the principal’s arrest. The trial court also scheduled a hearing on the State’s motion for April 8, 2008. The State served its motion for bond forfeiture and the notice of the execution hearing on Northeast Atlanta Surety via certified mail on December 26, 2007. Northeast Atlanta Surety moved to dismiss the State’s motion, arguing that the State had failed to substantially comply with the notice requirement under OCGA § 17-6-71 a. After the April 8, 2008 hearing, the trial court denied Northeast Atlanta Surety’s motion and ordered the bond forfeited. This appeal followed.
1. Northeast Atlanta Surety contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the State’s motion for bond forfeiture, arguing that the State did not substantially comply with OCGA § 17-6-71 a when it did not submit its written motion for bond forfeiture or serve notice of the execution hearing within ten days of the principal’s failure to appear. We disagree.
