• Tue. Oct 19th, 2021

Approved Bail Bond Agents

ByAuthor

Oct 13, 2021 ,

general bail bondsman

How To Become A Bail Bond Agent

The abstract judgment was entered nicely inside the permitted ninety days from the tip of the adjusted look interval. The courtroom found this to be good cause and continued the listening to to September 20, 2005.

Arrests, Jail, Bail And The Criminal Justice System

The court noted in the document that the bond could be forfeited when it was acquired. The surety’s agent filed the bond nearly two months later, and the court entered a minute order forfeiting the bond.

In People v. Fairmont Specialty Group, 2008 WL (Cal.App. October 27, 2008) the defendant was released with a notice to look on October 27. The defendant failed to seem on October 31, and the court forfeited the bond. The surety obtained one ninety day extension of the appearance interval, but the court refused to think about the merits of the surety’s motion for another extension.

Before the extended look period expired, the surety moved to toll the looks period or extend it as a result of extradition proceedings have been beneath method. On September 21 the surety moved to discharge the forfeiture and exonerate the bond as a result of the defendant’s authentic failure to look had been with out good trigger or, in the different, to toll the running of the appearance interval. The defendant was not returned to custody, and the court docket entered summary judgment on May 25, 2007.

The Court rejected the surety’s argument that “courtroom” in Penal Code §1305(a) meant a decide not a commissioner and affirmed denial of the movement. The Court held that bail forfeiture was an ex parte continuing that commissioners have been authorized to perform. The Court noted that Court of Appeals precedent from 1971 had so held, and the Legislature had not seen fit to amend the statute to alter that outcome.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the surety’s motion to extend the appearance period. The Court held that the district lawyer’s office didn’t hinder or interfere with the surety’s attempts to recuperate the defendant. It is the surety’s task, not the prosecutor’s, to return the defendant. The authorities isn’t required to take affirmative steps to assist the surety, only to chorus from affirmative actions that stop the surety from performing its obligations. The record did not show any motion by the district legal professional that hindered the surety.

The Court of Appeals held that the court docket clerk had the facility to reschedule the listening to, the defendant’s look was not required on October 27, and the courtroom didn’t lose jurisdiction by not forfeiting the bond on that date. The trial courtroom’s denial of the surety’s second movement to increase the looks interval, nevertheless, was an abuse of discretion as a result of the courtroom did not contemplate the deserves of the request or the facts put forward by the surety to justify the extra extension. The trial courtroom seemed to assume that there was time left within the appearance period and that the best way to realize a quick recovery of the defendant was to deny any additional extension. The surety’s counsel explained that if the looks period weren’t prolonged there was no reason for the surety to proceed in search of the defendant, but the court did not need to hear the facts.

The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the looks interval expired on September 21, 2006, and so the extension to September 25 was outdoors of the court docket’s jurisdiction and discharged the bond. The Court famous the 5 days as a result of the original discover was mailed and the truth that the primary appearance interval ended on a Saturday resulted within the subsequent Monday becoming the tip date and calculated the end of the prolonged look period as September 25. The surety’s movement filed on September 21 was well timed heard and the period prolonged.

He did not appear at the continued hearing, and the court docket forfeited the bond. The surety filed a timely motion to extend the unique 185 day appearance period, and the courtroom granted an extension of less than the utmost upon the surety’s illustration that it had located the defendant in Naples and was working with an Italian investigator to coordinate his detention.