County of Los Angeles v. Tsuru CA2/8

Filed 10/30/13 County of Los Angeles v. Tsuru CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, B240647

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ3725) v.

TOSHIO TSURU,

Defendant;

FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC.,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. E. Alan Nunez for Real Party in Interest and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel, and Joanne Nielsen, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

SUMMARY Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., the surety on a bail bond, appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture of the bond and to exonerate bail, and from the subsequent entry of summary judgment on the forfeited bond. The surety contends the trial court lost jurisdiction to declare the bond forfeited because it did not do so on the first day the defendant failed to appear, instead ordering the bond forfeited when the defendant failed to appear on the following day. We conclude the record shows the court had “reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear” within the meaning of Penal Code section 1305.1,1 and therefore the court did not lose jurisdiction to declare the bond forfeited. We affirm the judgment. FACTS The surety posted a bond of $100,000 for the release of defendant Toshio Tsuru from custody on October 27, 2010. On that date, the court granted a defense motion to continue the trial, and ordered the defendant to appear at a pretrial hearing on December 2, 2010. The defendant appeared on December 2, 2010, and was ordered to appear for jury trial on December 27, 2010. Defendant appeared on December 27. The court granted a defense motion to continue the trial, and set trial for January 3, 2011. Defendant appeared on January 3, and the matter was trailed to January 5, 2011. Defendant appeared on January 5, and the matter was trailed to a readiness conference on January 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., and a jury trial on January 11, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. An official Japanese language court interpreter was present on each date defendant appeared. On January 10, 2011, the defendant failed to appear for the readiness conference. The minute order issued on that date stated that “[t]he defendant fails to appear, without sufficient excuse . . . .” The transcript of the proceeding, however, shows this (and the minute order was later amended nunc pro tunc to add the same information):