People v. Bankers Ins. Co. CA6

Filed 4/22/16 P. v. Bankers Ins. Co. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H039200 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. M118689)

v.

BANKERS INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Bankers Insurance Company appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside summary judgment, vacate forfeiture, and exonerate bail. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to declare forfeiture of bail and affirm the order.

I. Factual and Procedural Background On July 22, 2011, appellant, through its agent Luna Bail Bonds, posted a $10,000 bond for the release of Felipe Braulio Bernardino. On September 14, 2011, Bernardino was present in court. Defense counsel stated that Bernardino intended to waive his right to a preliminary hearing and asked that arraignment be set after Bernardino met with an immigration attorney on October 4, 2011. The trial court responded: “How about this, do you want to waive prelim, certify it up on the existing Complaint as the charging document, and then we

schedule pretrial past the 4th?” Bernardino then waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and the parties stipulated that the existing charging document could be used in superior court as the charging document. Bernardino also waived his right to a trial within 60 days of September 14, 2011. The trial court continued the case to October 19, 2011 for a pretrial conference. The trial court did not order defendant to appear on that date. On October 19, 2011, Bernardino was not present in court. The trial court stated that defense counsel “actually appeared in chambers on this case indicating he’d lost track of his client, or his client had lost track of him and the Court, that he hadn’t seen or heard from him and was unable to track him down. He knew the Court was going to issue a bench warrant.” The trial court ordered bail forfeited. On October 20, 2011, the clerk of the court mailed a notice of forfeiture to the bail agent and appellant. On August 22, 2012, the clerk of the court mailed a notice of summary judgment to the bail agent and appellant. On September 21, 2012, appellant filed a motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture, and exonerate bail. Respondent filed opposition to the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion. The trial court stated that “[a]lthough the record does not reflect a direct order that Defendant be present on [October 19, 2011], it is clear that by setting the date to accommodate Defendant the court was acting to assure Defendant’s personal presence. [¶] Penal Code section 1305(a)(4) requires Defendant’s appearance on any occasion in which his presence is lawfully required. [¶] Furthermore, California Rule of Court 4.112(a)(3) requires Defendant’s presence at a court’s readiness conference. [¶] Local Rules 14.06 and 14.07 address the pre-trial conference calendar and jury trial readiness calendar, respectively. Both make clear that [the] primary purpose of these conferences is to reasonably predict the business of the court and eliminate congestion of the trial calendar. [¶] It appears