Cardwell was convicted of possession of pot and bail jumping. He appeals his conviction arguing for the first time on appeal that his vehicle was unlawfully searched and that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to convict him of bail jumping. The court does not address his new argument regarding the unlawful search of his vehicle since he did not preserve it at trial.
Cardwell told the office upon arrest that he was living out of his vehicle. A court date was set and Cardwell subsequently missed his hearing date. Although, his father appeared to inform the court that the hearing notice had been sent to the wrong address. His father notified the court that he did not know of his son’s whereabouts. The State amended their information to include bail jumping. The court issued a bench warrant and he was arrested a few years later. At trial the state maintained that they did not have to prove that Cardwell knew of his actual hearing date just that he knew that he had to present at some undisclosed time and failed to do so.
The court disagreed with the State and held that at the time of Cardwell’s release his future obligation to appear was contingent on the State filing criminal charges. Moreover, there was not evidence that he had been given notice of the court date (even though the notice was sent to the address he listed upon arrest, but the record showed that he had not received the notice prior to arraignment). The court held that the record lacked sufficiency of evidence to convict on bail jumping and remanded to dismiss the bail jumping conviction.
