People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. CA2/2

Filed 9/29/14 P. v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B250642

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA398252) v.

ACCREDITED SURETY & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dorothy B. Reyes, Judge. Affirmed.

John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant.

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, and Phyllis Asayama and Cassandra Thorp, Deputy District Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

The trial court ordered a bond forfeiture when a defendant failed to appear in court. Appellant contends that the hearing was intended as a scheduling hearing only and that the defendant was not required to be present. Case law and applicable statutes confirm that the defendant was required to be present at the hearing and that the bond was appropriately forfeited. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS This appeal arises out of an order to forfeit bail when Francisco Javier Navarro failed to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on December 11, 2012. Appellant posted a bail bond on August 8, 2012, to secure Navarro’s appearance in court. The case was called for a hearing on October 31, 2012. Navarro was present with his counsel. The trial court granted Navarro’s motion to continue the preliminary hearing. The court scheduled the preliminary hearing for December 11, 2012. Navarro failed to appear in court for the December 11 hearing and the trial court forfeited his bond on the record. The clerk mailed notice of forfeiture to the parties the same day. On June 13, 2013, appellant filed a motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail, or in the alternative for an extension of time. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on July 10, 2013. The court denied the motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail. DISCUSSION Appellant contends that Navarro was not legally required to be present at the December 11, 2012 hearing and that it was outside the jurisdiction of the trial court to order bail to be forfeited. Appellant insists that the December 11 hearing was a pre- preliminary hearing where the actual date for the preliminary hearing would be set. We disagree. Navarro had notice that the preliminary hearing was rescheduled for December 11, 2012, because he was present in court when the date was set during the October 31 hearing. The court informed Navarro of his right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days of his arraignment and then asked him, “Do you waive and give up that right so that the