Appeals court hears challenge to 45‑day suspension of Tennessee bondsman

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in Jackson on the court’s January docket heard arguments in an appeal by Anne Blankenship challenging a trial judge’s 45‑day suspension of her authority to operate as a professional bondsman.

Appellant counsel David Camp told the three‑judge panel the suspension should be reversed or the case remanded because the trial court did not follow the statutory hearing procedures and relied on material outside the record. “The remedy is that you reverse the court’s decision, that you basically reinstate her reputation from the perspective that she should not have been suspended under these circumstances, or you can remand it back for a hearing that should should have been conducted in conformity with 401125b,” Camp said.

The case turns on whether the Decatur‑area bondswoman violated statutory requirements for a “permanent business office, business telephone, and appropriate signage” and whether the trial judge improperly relied on an ex parte video and community reputation in imposing the 45‑day suspension. Assistant Attorney General Katie Neff, arguing for the State, told the court the record supports the trial court’s findings and that Blankenship waived appellate review of the video by failing to make it part of the record. “Miss Blankenship was provided the video. The trial court reviewed the video. The trial court gave miss Blankenship an opportunity to explain the video,” Neff said, and urged the court to defer to the trial court’s factual findings.

Judges on the panel pressed both sides on remedy and notice. Judge Ross Dyer asked, “What’s the remedy here?” and queried how an appellate court could “restore anything” after a suspension that has been served. Counsel for Blankenship said a remand for a hearing conducted under the statutory framework would protect procedural fairness and allow the trial court to make findings based only on evidence presented in an adversarial process.

Camp emphasized several procedural concerns recorded in the trial court’s order: the court’s reference to long‑standing complaints and the judge’s statement that the conduct had occurred “for several years without consequence,” the trial judge’s ex parte review of a video the appellant did not see in court, and testimony that the complaining witness did not appear. Camp argued those elements raised questions about impartiality and notice of the matters relied on by the trial court.

Neff responded that the trial court also made enumerated factual findings — including that Blankenship operated out of multiple locations, had signage at one location but not at the primary address listed on business documents, and solicited business in a jail parking lot — and that those findings support suspension authority under the statute cited by the trial court.

The transcript shows counsel and judges also discussed record evidence: photographs introduced at the trial level (listed in the record as volume 1, pages 34–38), the absence of the video in the appellate record, and whether the trial judge’s reference to a local reputation was an admonition or part of the factual findings supporting suspension. Camp asked the panel whether the court could separate a possible valid finding about signage from allegedly improper consideration of outside complaints; he urged the court to remand for a properly conducted 40‑11‑125(b) hearing if the panel found procedural error.

The appeals court did not announce a decision during the argument and called the next case after oral argument concluded. The appellate court’s disposition — whether it will affirm the trial court’s suspension, remand for a new hearing, or reverse — remains pending on the docket.