Gate City Bail Bonds
Therefore, the Court concluded the notice was legitimate and the summary judgment correct. The surety might have appealed the summary judgment or filed a well timed motion to vacate it, but instead the surety waited till after the attraction interval expired and moved to set the judgment apart for lack of jurisdiction. American Contractors Indemnity Company v. County of Orange, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 (Cal. App. 2005) acknowledged that the certificate of mailing filed by the clerk did not comply with Penal Code §1013a because it didn’t embrace the name and tackle of the individuals served.
The surety moved to put aside the judgment on the ground that no discover of the primary forfeiture was mailed and so the court misplaced jurisdiction to enter judgment on the bond. Not surprisingly, the courtroom rejected this argument and held that there was no requirement to mail discover of the primary forfeiture because the bond had been reinstated with the surety’s consent. The defendant pled responsible and bail was continued pending sentencing. The court warned the defendant that he confronted a considerably longer sentence if he failed to seem and indicated that it needed the bail agent to agree that the bail continued in drive. The bail agent did not agree, and the defendant did not appear for sentencing.
On January 16 he went to the clerk’s workplace and had his look re-set for January 20. Penal Code §1305(c) offers that the court should exonerate the bond if the defendant appears in court inside one hundred eighty days of the bond forfeiture.
Rptr.3d seventy six, 93 P.3d 1020 (Cal. 2004) is a uncommon California Supreme Court choice on a bail bond issue. The trial court docket entered summary judgment in opposition to the surety on the 185th day after the notice of forfeiture was mailed. The surety, nonetheless, did not move to set it apart before it grew to become final or file an attraction (both of which might have alerted the government and the courtroom to the error and allowed them to right it).
The Court assumed, without deciding, that showing in the clerk’s workplace was appearing in courtroom inside the which means of Cal. It however refused to set aside the forfeiture because it found that the record earlier than it on appeal failed to establish the defendant had personally appeared. The surety had the burden of building a basis to reverse the path court, and the factual report was inadequate to do so.
Instead, the surety waited until it was too late to enter a brand new summary judgment after which filed a movement to set aside the summary judgment, discharge the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. In People v. American Contractors Indemnity Company, 2004 WL (Cal. App. June 24, 2004) the surety sought relief from forfeiture as a result of within 185 days of mailing of the notice of forfeiture the defendant voluntarily appeared in the clerk’s office and had a new court docket date set. When he didn’t appear for the brand new date, no new forfeiture was entered.
The defendant failed to appear on May 6, and the clerk mailed a notice of forfeiture that incorrectly acknowledged the date of forfeiture as May 6. The surety argued that it was by no means given discover of the April 25 forfeiture and so the eventual summary judgment was invalid and the bond was exonerated. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the notice was not required to state the date of forfeiture, here there was just one forfeiture so there could be no confusion as to what the notice was for, and the notice was mailed inside 30 days of the forfeiture as the statute requires.
Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the judgment of forfeiture because the bail agent admitted receiving precise discover of the forfeiture. The defendant once more failed to look and the right procedures have been adopted to enter judgment against the surety.
The problem was whether or not going to the clerk’s office was an appearance “in court docket.” The Court of Appeals held that it was not. The Court stated, “An look within the courthouse vestibule, hallway, restroom, or clerk’s office is not an appearance in court docket.” The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the clerk had a duty to arrest the defendant pursuant to the warrant. The court additionally, nevertheless, continued the case to May 6 and stayed issuance of the bench warrant.
The Court of Appeals held that the guilty plea, in contrast to a conviction after trial, did not require the court docket to remand the defendant into custody except it made certain particular findings. The fact that the trial court apparently was confused or had doubts and wished the bail agent’s consent did not change the statutory procedure. The failure of the bail agent to consent to continuation of the bail was not a constructive surrender of the defendant.