Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Jennifer M. Perkins](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10800195/state-v-coker/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Coker

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 25-0168

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (11)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Jennifer M. Perkins

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

KRISTI ANN COKER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0168
FILED 02-25-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202200579
The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman, AZ
By Rod Gilleo
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Kristi Ann Coker, Spring, TX
Defendant/Appellant
STATE v. COKER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
Judge Perkins also delivered a separate special concurrence.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Kristi Coker appeals from the superior court’s denial of her
motion seeking relief from an order forfeiting her $10,000 appearance bond.
For the following reasons, we vacate the order and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On May 17, 2022, police officers stopped Coker for driving a
vehicle that had been reported stolen. Officers found a stolen handgun and
counterfeit bills in the vehicle. Coker was arrested and charged with one
count of theft of means of transportation, a class 3 felony; two counts of
forgery, a class 4 felony; one count of misconduct involving weapons, a
class 4 felony; and one count of theft (value over $1,000), a class 6 felony.

¶3 The court set a $5,000 cash bond. Coker moved to reduce the
bond amount. The State responded, requesting an increase. On June 29, the
court increased the bond to $10,000. Coker appeared for a July 20 status
conference remotely from jail, and the court set a final management
conference on September 28, 2022.

¶4 On August 11, 2022, Coker was extradited to face separate
charges in Texas. On August 23, the $10,000 cash bond was posted. On
September 21, Coker’s mother (“Mother”) informed the court that Coker
was still incarcerated in Texas. Coker did not attend the September 28
hearing, and defense counsel confirmed that Coker was incarcerated in
Texas. The court issued a bench warrant for Coker’s arrest.

¶5 The State filed a motion requesting that Coker forfeit the
appearance bond. Coker’s court-appointed attorney in the criminal case did
not represent her in the bond forfeiture matter, which is a civil proceeding.
Coker filed no response to the State’s forfeiture motion. The court held a
hearing on the bond forfeiture motion on November 28, 2022, which neither
Coker nor her attorney attended. The court summarily ordered Coker to

2
STATE v. COKER
Decision of the Court

forfeit the entire $10,000 bond, noting: “because [Coker] did not show up,
the bond was already forfeited.”

¶6 On May 25, 2023, Mother emailed the court, requesting that
the court release the $10,000 bond to her because Coker was never released
from custody and remained incarcerated in Texas. The court took no action
on the email because “no motion [was] filed.” Mother filed a pro per motion
in August 2023, again requesting that the court release the bond to her,
noting that she had paid the bond herself. The court denied the motion
because “the bond receipt in the file” showed that “the bond was posted by
[Coker],” meaning Mother was “not a party to this case and [had no]
standing to file any pleadings.”

¶7 In January 2025, Coker herself filed a pro per motion
requesting that the court either reinstate the bond or release it to Mother
because Coker had been “extradited to Texas to face charges that were
discussed and understood by the court prior to the bond being set.”
Effectively, this was a motion for relief from the court’s order forfeiting the
bond. Although Coker claimed in her motion that she “was never notified
of any discrepancies with the bond,” the court denied relief because Coker
“did not provide any explanation for the two-year delay in requesting”
relief, and “such a delay [was] unreasonable and [did] not warrant relief.”
The court also noted it had already “considered [Coker’s] custody status as
one of the factors in determining whether to forfeit the bond.” Coker timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-
2101(A)(1).

¶8 While the appeal was pending, Coker was extradited from
Texas back to Arizona. And the State dismissed all charges without
prejudice a few months later.

¶9 Also, while the appeal was pending, the State moved to
supplement the record with a receipt of the cash bond that listed Mother as
the payer. The existing receipt in the record listed Coker as the payer but
included Mother’s driver license number. The superior court granted the
motion to supplement the record.

DISCUSSION

¶10 Coker challenges the court’s denial of her motion to
reconsider the forfeiture of the $10,000 bond, arguing that she had
reasonable cause for her failure to appear for the September 28, 2022
hearing because she had been extradited to Texas shortly before the
hearing.

3
STATE v. COKER
Decision of the Court

¶11 Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Criminal Rule”)
7.6(c), a court may issue an order forfeiting an appearance bond if: (1) a
“defendant who is released on an appearance bond fail[s] to appear for a
required court appearance,” (2) “the court issues a warrant for the
defendant’s arrest,” and (3) after holding a hearing, “the court finds that the
violation is not excused.” A party may move for relief from an order
forfeiting an appearance bond under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Civil Rule”) 60(b). State ex rel. Berger v. Marquardt, 111 Ariz. 413, 415
(1975). We review the superior court’s ruling on a Civil Rule 60(b) motion
for an abuse of discretion, but we review the court’s interpretation of our
rules de novo. Gonzalez v. Nguyen, 243 Ariz. 531, 533, ¶ 8 (2018).

¶12 Civil Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment or order for five enumerated grounds and “any other reason
justifying relief.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Coker’s motion did not explicitly
allege any Civil Rule 60 grounds for relief. But she can obtain relief under
Civil Rule 60(b)(6) if she shows (1) “extraordinary circumstances of
hardship or injustice justifying relief,” and (2) “a reason for setting aside the
judgment other than one of the reasons set forth in the preceding five
clauses of rule [60(b)].” Hilgeman v. Am. Mortg. Sec., Inc., 196 Ariz. 215, 220,
¶ 15 (App. 2000).

¶13 A motion for relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6) must be brought
“within a reasonable time.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The amount of time that
is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case. Marquez v. Rapid
Harvest Co., 99 Ariz. 363, 366 (1965). The party seeking relief from an order
has the burden to explain the reasonableness of the delay, Richas v. Superior
Court, 133 Ariz. 512, 515 (1982), and should support that explanation with
affidavit or testimony. Marquez, 99 Ariz. at 366. The superior court has
discretion in determining whether the delay in filing the motion for relief
was reasonable. Hilgeman, 196 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 15. A court abuses that
discretion “when there is no evidence to support its conclusion or the
reasons given by the court are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or
amount to a denial of justice.” Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC, 231
Ariz. 236, 241, ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (cleaned up).

¶14 In Coker’s motion for relief from the forfeiture order, she
asserted that she “was never notified of any discrepancies with the bond,”
“followed the ordered guidelines set for the bond by the [c]ourt,” and
“[a]ny issues [were] unavoidable” and not her fault. A delay in moving for
relief from an order may be reasonable if the movant did not receive notice
of the order. See Black v. Greer, 17 Ariz. App. 383, 384–85 (1972) (a motion to
set aside the entry of dismissal was timely because the movant never

4
STATE v. COKER
Decision of the Court

received the clerk’s letter giving notice the case would be dismissed if no
further action was taken). The record evidence supports Coker’s claim.
Every filing in the bond forfeiture matter was mailed to Coker’s home
address, rather than the Texas prison where she was incarcerated.

¶15 The court did not consider Coker’s alleged lack of notice in
evaluating whether the two-year delay was reasonable. Rather it found that
Coker “did not provide any explanation for the two-year delay.” But Coker
did provide such an explanation, which the record appears to support.
Thus, the court’s reasons for denying her motion are “clearly untenable.”
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C., 231 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 20. The court abused its
discretion by denying Coker’s motion for relief on grounds that she did not
provide any explanation for her delay. See id.

CONCLUSION

¶16 We vacate the superior court’s order denying Coker’s motion
for relief from the forfeiture order, and remand for the court to determine
in the first instance whether the motion was timely based on lack of notice,
and if so, whether it succeeds on the merits.

5
STATE v. COKER
Perkins, J., specially concurring

P E R K I N S, J., specially concurring:

¶17 I write separately to explain that (1) Coker’s motion, if timely,
should succeed on merits, and (2) the court erred by precluding Mother
from participating in the bond forfeiture proceedings.

I. Coker’s motion presented meritorious grounds for relief from the
forfeiture order under Civil Rule 60(b)(6).

¶18 If a “defendant who is released on an appearance bond fail[s]
to appear for a required court appearance,” the court may order that bond
to be forfeited if it holds a hearing and finds the defendant’s failure to
appear was not excused. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.6(c)(2)–(4). The surety has the
burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s
failure to appear was excused. State v. Bail Bonds USA, 223 Ariz. 394, 397,
¶ 11 (App. 2010). The court has discretion in making that determination,
but it may not exercise that discretion “arbitrarily,” it “must be exercised
reasonably, and in furtherance of governing law.” Id. at ¶ 10.

¶19 The court’s stated reason for denying Coker’s motion is
inconsistent with the record. After finding the motion untimely, the court
noted: “Pursuant to [State v. Old West Bonding Co.], 203 Ariz. 468, 475 (2002),
the [c]ourt considered [Coker’s] custody status as one of the factors in
determining whether to forfeit the bond.” In other words, the court
declined to consider Coker’s argument that being in custody in Texas
excused her absence because it had previously considered her custody
status when entering the original forfeiture order. But the minute entry
from the forfeiture hearing shows that the court ordered forfeiture solely
because Coker “did not show up” for the hearing. Meaning, the court
arbitrarily rejected Coker’s argument on the basis that it had previously
considered her custody status when the court’s own record indicates it had
not.

¶20 The court’s arbitrary rationale aside, the record does not
support denying Coker’s motion on the merits for any reason. Coker was
transferred to custody in Texas before the bond was posted—she was never
“released on an appearance bond.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.6(c)(2). In other
words, Coker could not have been “released on an appearance bond”
because the posting of the bond was not the but-for cause of her release.
Compare with Bail Bonds USA, 223 Ariz. at 398, ¶ 13 (a defendant was
“released on bond” into federal custody because the defendant “would not
have been released into federal custody but for the Surety’s act of posting
bond”). The court thus lacked discretion to order forfeiture under Criminal

6
STATE v. COKER
Perkins, J., specially concurring

Rule 7.6(c)(4). Id. at 397, ¶ 10 (a court’s discretion must be exercised “in
furtherance of governing law.”).

¶21 The State relies on State v. Old West Bonding Co. to argue that
Coker’s custody status was not dispositive because it was only one factor
for the court to consider in ordering the forfeiture. 203 Ariz. 468, 475, ¶ 26
(App. 2002) (when a defendant is absent “due to incarceration,” that is
merely one factor in deciding whether the absence was excused under
Criminal Rule 7.4(c)(4)). But Old West Bonding Co. only applies to
defendants who were incarcerated after being “released on bond.” Id.
Criminal Rule 7.6 confirms that distinction by only permitting the court to
initiate forfeiture proceedings when a “defendant who is released on an
appearance bond failed to appear for a required court appearance.” Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 7.6(c)(2) (emphasis added).

¶22 The court’s improper order forfeiting the bond constitutes “a
reason justifying relief” under Civil Rule 60(b)(6). “The primary purpose of
an appearance bond is to assure a defendant’s appearance at the trial or
other hearings.” Bail Bonds USA, 223 Ariz. at 397, ¶ 9. If a defendant is
extradited to another state and her appearance bond is paid while she is in
the other state’s custody, the bond is not securing her appearance. Rather,
the first state may re-obtain custody of the defendant by following the
procedures set forth in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, codified in
Section 31-481. State v. Bonds, 201 Ariz. 203, 208, ¶ 20 (App. 2001). Because
the appearance bond here served no purpose, and Coker’s failure to appear
at the September 28, 2022 hearing was involuntary due to her extradition to
Texas, the forfeiture of the $10,000 bond was “harsh, rather than fair and
equitable.” Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151, 164 (App. 1993). Coker
provided meritorious grounds for relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6). See id.

II. The court erred by precluding Mother from participating in the bond
forfeiture proceedings.

¶23 Coker argues on appeal that the court mistakenly barred
Mother from participating in the bond forfeiture proceedings due to a
clerical error that listed Coker as the payer of the bond rather than Mother.
The court denied Mother’s motion to release the bond to her, reasoning that
Mother had no standing because she did not pay the bond. Although the
court’s denial of Mother’s motion is not before us on appeal, I note that the
denial was based on a factual error.

¶24 There are two receipts of the bond in the record. One lists
Coker as the payer of the bond, and the other lists Mother. But both receipts

7
STATE v. COKER
Perkins, J., specially concurring

list Mother’s driver license number, not Coker’s. And both receipts show
that the bond was paid in cash. Given that Coker was in custody in Texas
at the time, I cannot see how she could have paid the cash bond. Based on
this record, Mother paid the bond. And so, Mother would have standing to
contest the forfeiture of the bond. See State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds, 222 Ariz.
193, 195, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (“[A] depositor or indemnitor does have standing
to contest the forfeiture of a bond in a bond forfeiture proceeding.”). If
Mother were to intervene in the bond forfeiture matter, she could file her
own motion for relief from the forfeiture order. And the court’s erroneous
denials of her earlier attempts to participate in the proceedings would likely
provide a reasonable explanation for her delay in filing such a motion.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

8