Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-2917 (2026)
motion to set aside forfeiture.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
motion to set aside forfeiture.
Pursuant to a motion filed within one hundred eighty (180) days after an order of forfeiture as provided in section 19-2915, Idaho Code, the court that ordered forfeiture may direct that the order of forfeiture be set aside, in whole or in part, upon such conditions as the court may impose, as provided by rules adopted by the supreme court, if it appears that justice so requires. If the court sets aside the order of forfeiture, then it may:
(1) Reinstate the bail;
(2) Exonerate the bail;
(3) Recommit the defendant to the custody of the sheriff and set new bail; or
(4) Release the defendant on his own recognizance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Paz v. State, 852 P.2d 1355 (Idaho 1993).
Paz v. State, 852 P.2d 1355 (Idaho 1993). “section 19-2917. In fact, the appellate record before the Supreme Court contains no reference to the post-conviction proceeding.”
Fields v. State, 17 P.3d 230 (Idaho 2000). “3 Fields has not met the requirements of I.C. § 19-2917(5)(a). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claim of ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest.”
State v. Aladdin Bail Bonds, 402 P.3d 1119 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “However, in the memorandum in support of its motion to exonerate, the response to the State’s objection, and during the hearing, Aladdin argued a more narrow issue—that in determining whether to set aside forfeiture, the district court should consider all relevant factors and…”
State v. Big Dawg Bail Bonds, 336 P.3d 306 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “2d at 1252 ; see also I.C. § 19-2917. Whether to set aside the forfeiture of a bail bond under I.”
State v. Mr. Bail, Inc (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). “See I.C. § 19-2917 (requiring motion to set aside bond forfeiture be filed within 180 days after order of forfeiture); I.”
State v. Aladdin Bail Bonds (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “However, in the memorandum in support of its motion to exonerate, the response to the State’s objection, and during the hearing, Aladdin argued a more narrow issue--that in determining whether to set aside forfeiture, the district court should consider all relevant factors and…”
— Idaho Code § 19-2917(5)(a) — 1 case
Fields v. State, 17 P.3d 230 (Idaho 2000). “3 Fields has not met the requirements of I.C. § 19-2917(5)(a). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claim of ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.