People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.CA5

Filed 4/8/14 P. .v American Contractors Indemnity Co.CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F065985 & F066269

v. (Super. Ct. No. F10601989)

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS OPINION INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from orders and judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge. E. Alan Nunez, for Defendant and Appellant. Kevin B. Briggs, County Counsel and Evan A. Merat, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Franson, J.

American Contractors Indemnity Company (surety) appeals from orders denying relief from bail forfeiture and from the summary judgment based on the forfeiture. It contends the summary judgment was void for late entry and the bond should have been exonerated when the prosecutor elected not to extradite the defendant, Isela Molina. We conclude that the summary judgment was void because it was not entered within the 90- day period following denial of the surety’s motion to vacate forfeiture, which renders the second contention moot. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Molina was arrested for first degree burglary and posted bail. On June 14, 2011, she failed to appear and the court declared bail forfeited. A notice of forfeiture was mailed to the surety on June 15, 2011, making the bail forfeiture period set to expire on December 17, 2011. Subsequently, the parties twice stipulated to good cause for an extension and the trial court ordered an extension of time on bail forfeiture until July 5, 2012. On June 11, 2012, the surety filed a motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail on the grounds that the prosecutor elected not to extradite Molina after being informed of her location and identity (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (g)).1 The People opposed the motion on the ground Molina had not been identified by a local law enforcement officer where she had been found. The surety countered that Molina’s identification by a Mexican official was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. The minute order of July 2, 2012, reflects that the motion was heard and states, “Case is taken under submission. Original date 07/02/2012, Extension granted to 10/01/2012,” and “In the cause previously taken under submission, the court now rules as follows:” “Motion denied.” The surety appealed that order in appeal No. F065985.