People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA6

Filed 9/8/14 P. v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039527 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. M122156)

v.

FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment entered after the trial court denied its motion to extend the forfeiture period for the bail bond it posted for a criminal defendant. As the record discloses no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we will affirm the judgment. Background On May 21, 2012, appellant’s agent, The Bail Hotline Bail Bonds (Bail Hotline) posted a $20,000 bond for the release of defendant Larry Weathers, pending his May 30 appearance on misdemeanor charges. On June 22, 2012, Weathers failed to appear for arraignment. The court declared the bond forfeited and notice of forfeiture was sent to both appellant and Bail Hotline. On December 26, 2012, Bail Hotline moved to extend the forfeiture period by 180 days pursuant to section 1305.4.

In their opposition to the extension motion the People noted that the investigator had not begun searching for Weathers until August 1, 2012, more than a month after Weathers failed to appear for his June 22 court date. The People complained that the investigator’s search had been “perfunctory and limited”; he had waited until October to obtain a booking photograph, failed to “stake out” any locations, and conducted only one in-person interview—with someone who had no connection to Weathers. The People further argued that, given the large population of Las Vegas and no current address for the defendant, the investigator had “virtually no chance” of locating Weathers there. Thus, in the People’s view, the investigator had demonstrated “neither due diligence nor a reasonable likelihood of . . . capturing Defendant Weathers” within an additional 180 days. On January 30, 2013, the court heard argument and denied the motion to extend. On March 12, 2013 summary judgment was entered against appellant on the forfeited bond, followed by appellant’s April 11, 2013 notice of appeal. Discussion As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant’s notice of appeal purports to appeal from the order denying the extension motion as well as the ensuing summary judgment. Appellant asserts that both are appealable, but it is mistaken. The law is settled that the denial of a section 1305.4 motion is not appealable.1 (People v. Seneca Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 75, 80.) We will, however, treat the appeal as having been taken from only the summary judgment. (Ibid.) Section 1305, subdivision (a), requires the court to declare forfeiture of a bond securing the defendant’s attendance if, “without sufficient excuse,” the defendant has failed to appear in court on any occasion before pronouncement of judgment, when his or