P.v. Mark Garcia Bail Bonds CA5

Filed 5/1/15 P. .v Mark Garcia Bail Bonds CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F069328 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1459466) v.

MARK GARCIA BAIL BONDS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John D. Freeland, Judge. Saria & Saria and Robert J. Saria for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- In this bail forfeiture action, appellant Mark Garcia Bail Bonds, moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail based on equitable estoppel. According to appellant, the

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

superior court clerk’s office told appellant’s bail agent on three occasions that the case was closed and the bond exonerated when that was not true. The trial court denied appellant’s motion finding that the bail agent’s testimony was not credible. Appellant argues it acted reasonably and in good faith and therefore relief should be granted. We disagree. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when ruling on appellant’s motion. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In May 2013, appellant posted a $50,000 bond for the release of defendant Gabriel Rafael Orozco. The defendant failed to appear as ordered on June 19, 2013, and the trial court declared the bond forfeited in open court. In February 2014, the trial court entered summary judgment on the forfeiture of the bond. Appellant filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond based on equitable estoppel. The motion was supported by a declaration executed by Jaime Gonzales, a bail agent employed by appellant. At the hearing on the motion, Gonzales testified on appellant’s behalf. Gonzales testified that the defendant came into the bail bond office the day after he failed to appear and was instructed to get a new calendar date. Gonzales further testified that the defendant again contacted the bail bond office on July 26, 2013. According to Gonzales, the defendant advised him that the case was closed. Gonzales recounted that he called the clerk’s office on July 29 and was told that the case was closed and that the warrant would be recalled. Gonzales stated that he contacted the clerk’s office again on December 20, 2013, because he had not received an exoneration slip. According to Gonzales, he was informed that the bond had been exonerated. Gonzales testified that he called the clerk’s office a third time on January 21, 2014, to inquire about the exoneration slip he had not received and was directed to bring a duplicate copy of an exoneration slip for the clerk’s