People v. The North River Ins. Co. CA4/1

Filed 9/9/20 P. v. The North River Ins. Co. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D075780 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE 00015736-CU-EN-CTL) COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant; BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore Weathers and Francis M. Devaney, Judges. Affirmed. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant and Appellant The North River Insurance, Company and Real Party in Interest and Appellant Bad Boys Bail Bonds. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Jennifer M. Stone, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant The North River Insurance Co. and its agent, defendant Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively known as Surety), appeal from a summary judgment and the denial of a motion to vacate forfeiture of and exonerate the bail bond that was posted on behalf of criminal defendant Jose Sabas Suarez. Surety contends that by setting a sentencing date for Suarez that was three months after entry of his guilty plea to enable his counsel to obtain medical documentation relevant to sentencing, the court changed the terms of Suarez’s custody and release such that it materially increased the risks to Surety, discharging its liability on the bond. We disagree. Suarez remained released on bail in lieu of custody pending his formal sentencing date. Moreover, the setting of reasonable court dates and the granting of reasonable continuances are part of the normal course of criminal proceedings and do not, without more, constitute grounds for discharge of a surety. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2017 defendant Suarez was charged with importation and possession for sale of methamphetamine. Surety posted a $170,000 bond to secure his appearance at future court proceedings, and Suarez was released on bail. Roughly one month later, as part of a plea agreement, Suarez pleaded guilty to one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). He entered a time waiver, and the court set sentencing for January 9, 2018, nearly two months later than the due course date. Suarez represented to the court that he had been diagnosed with cancer. Judge Devaney indicated that if Suarez could provide proof of that diagnosis at sentencing, he would impose of a sentence of three years local prison time. If Suarez could not substantiate the diagnosis, the sentence