Bail Agent Insurance Policy Information
The Court famous that the bond was conditioned on the defendant’s failure to look, which is what happened, and that the statute on fugitive warrants doesn’t call for a particular type. The Court affirmed the trial court docket’s denial of the surety’s movement.
The Court reasoned that the choice was within the discretion of the trial courtroom and that discretion was not abused because “Reasonable minds might differ as to this problem . He failed to seem and the proper procedures had been followed to forfeit the bond and enter summary judgment.
The State argued that the grievance was filed on March 18, before the ultimate arraignment date, and so complied with the statute. The Court held that the police division notices persevering with the date did not change the “date of arraignment” for functions of compliance with the statute, and jurisdiction to forfeit the bond was lost when no criticism has been filed by February 6. The decision suggests a unique outcome if the events had appeared and the court had continued the arraignment date. The evidence submitted by the surety showed efforts to get well the defendant and some risk of success if given extra time, but not intensive efforts or any nice chance of success.
The Judge informed him to remain as a predicate to figuring out whether or not he must be taken back into custody, not as a call to show him over to the Sheriff. After the defendant failed to seem, the surety found that he was in protective custody as a witness for the District Attorney in one other case and that the District Attorney had induced him to return to the United States by a warranty that he would not be arrested on any prior charge.
The court then forfeited the bond and finally entered summary judgment towards the surety. The Court of Appeals held that the document did not assist an implied finding that the defendant had a enough excuse for his failure to look on September 26. By failing to forfeit the bond on the twenty sixth, the courtroom misplaced jurisdiction to forfeit it later.
The surety moved to put aside the summary judgment as a result of the bond form used was not for a fugitive cost. That is, the bond type was an strange look bond somewhat than a fugitive bond.
In the enchantment, the state agreed that underneath these circumstances the bond ought to have been exonerated. The surety argued that jurisdiction to forfeit the bond was misplaced when no criticism had been filed on February 6, 2004 (15 days from the original arraignment date set when the defendant was released).
The defendant failed to look on February 2, 2004, however his lawyer had spoken to the defendant’s sister who said the defendant did not realize he wanted to appear. The courtroom did not forfeit the bond and re-scheduled the looks to February 6. When the defendant didn’t seem on February 6, the courtroom forfeited the bond. The Court additionally held that there was no need to offer the defendant notice to look on the 6th past the course in court on the 2nd. Rptr.3d 253 (Cal. App. 2005) the defendant failed to seem on January 14 and a bench warrant was issued.
Penal Code §1305(a) requires the courtroom to declare the forfeiture “in open courtroom.” The Court mentioned the legislative historical past of that provision and held that the statute meant what it said and the Judge has to make an announcement in open court not merely make an entry within the courtroom document. The Court reversed summary judgment against the surety and ordered exoneration of the bond. Neither the defendant nor his legal professional appeared at the initial arraignment on Friday, September 26, but the attorney despatched word that he was in trial and asked that the case be continued. The Judge didn’t forfeit the bond and continued the case to Monday, September 29. The attorney appeared on the twenty ninth and stated he couldn’t find the defendant.