• Mon. Aug 15th, 2022

Bail Enforcement Agents


May 23, 2021 ,

general bail bondsman

What If I (Or My Loved One) Cannot Make Bail For Dui In Los Angeles?

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court docket because Penal Code §1305(g) requires that the defendant be detained within the presence of a neighborhood law enforcement officer and identified in an affidavit made by that officer. Here, there was no affidavit from a Mexican legislation enforcement officer, and it was not clear that the defendant had ever been detained in the presence of the Mexican authorities. On appeal the court didn’t reach the discover issue as a result of it agreed with the surety that the trial courtroom lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond when it reinstated the probation. The incontrovertible fact that the bail agent consented on the surety’s behalf didn’t change the truth that the court had no jurisdiction.

The Court acknowledged, “Although Post didn’t appear on July 5, she did appear on July 12. At the July 12 listening to, the court continued Post on probation when it ordered her to seem on July 19 to provide proof of enrollment within the volunteer program. By returning Post to probation, the bail was exonerated by operation of law. California Penal Code §1305(a) requires that the forfeiture be declared in open court docket. There was no transcript of proceedings, and the courtroom clerk’s minutes did not present that the forfeiture was, or was not, declared in open court.

The second arrest was on the proper cost, but the trial court withdrew the warrant and reinstated the bond. It had the proper to take action provided that the bail didn’t surrender the defendant and the bail was notified of the reinstatement. There was no dispute that the bail did not surrender the defendant, however the document didn’t set up whether or not the surety was notified. There was no proof of discover to the surety, however the State argued that the surety had the burden to prove notice was not given. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for the trial court to find out whether notice was given.

The surety moved for relief as a result of there was no good trigger for the defendant’s first failure to look, and the court needed to forfeit the bond at that time. The Court of Appeals agreed and held that the fact that the defense lawyer had spoken with the defendant by phone in the earlier week was not good trigger for the defendant’s failure to appear. Since the court did not forfeit the bond when the defendant failed to look for the trial readiness convention, it misplaced the ability to declare a forfeiture at a later date. The bail agent discovered evidence that she was in Costa Rica, and the prosecutor, bail agent and federal authorities had been working to extradite her.

Penal Code §1305(e) permits tolling of the appearance period due to short-term disability of the defendant, however right here the defendant was alleged to be at liberty in Costa Rica. There was no proof she was prevented from showing by illness, madness or incarceration, due to this fact there was no foundation for tolling the operating of the appearance interval. The surety’s agent, along with the Mexican police, positioned him there, however the agent didn’t acquire an affidavit from a Mexican law enforcement officer.

The trial courtroom granted one extension of the 185 day look period. The surety applied for an additional extension or within the different to toll the running of the period. The trial court denied the surety’s request, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court held that only one extension of the looks period may be granted.

When the agent in Mexico situated the defendant, the surety’s agent in California called the District Attorney’s workplace and requested for an extradition request. The surety moved to put aside abstract judgment and exonerate the bond. The trial court docket denied the surety’s movement, and the surety appealed.

The trial court docket denied the surety’s motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed. She failed to seem to point out she had performed the group service, and the court issued a bench warrant. She failed to look once more, and the bond was forfeited, but she appeared several days later, the bail agent consented to reinstatement of the bond, and the courtroom continued her on probation and ordered her to seem and show she had enrolled in a community service program. The surety sought to set the forfeiture apart as a result of the bail agent didn’t obtain discover of the forfeiture, and the court docket denied reduction. The first arrest was on an immigration cost, and the Court held that it didn’t exonerate the bond because the defendant was not in custody on the charge for which the bond was given.