People v. The North River Ins. Co. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 29, 2020 No. B294462Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond is not void due to a failure to consider a defendant's ability to pay bail, nor is it void because different judges or courthouses within the same superior court system handled the forfeiture and the subsequent entry of judgment.

Issues

Whether a failure to consider a defendant's ability to pay bail renders a subsequent summary judgment on a forfeited bond void.
Whether Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (a) requires the same judge who declared a bail forfeiture to enter the summary judgment.
Whether a summary judgment is void or voidable if entered in a different courthouse than where the forfeiture was declared.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 1306 plainly requires the court that declared the forfeiture to enter the summary judgment. However, that language does not state, and does not mean, the same judge of the court must enter both orders.”

Filed 12/29/20 P. v. The North River Ins. Co. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B294462 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. OSJ2180)

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant;

BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher K. Lui and Alison M. Estrada, Judges. Affirmed.

Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant and Appellant and Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, Assistant County Counsel, and David D. Lee, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Appellant The North River Insurance Company and real party in interest and appellant Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively the surety)1 appeal from the entry of summary judgment on a forfeited bail bond and from an order denying a postjudgment motion to vacate forfeiture, exonerate bail, and set aside the summary judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2013, the trial court set bail for criminal defendant Newton Sean Mukasa (Mukasa) at $100,000 and remanded him to custody.2 The court did not make an inquiry regarding Mukasa’s ability to pay. In May 2013, the surety posted a $100,000 bail bond for Mukasa’s release. During jury deliberations in October 2013, Mukasa failed to appear, and the trial court ordered bail forfeited. The next day, the clerk of the court mailed notice of the forfeiture to the surety, indicating that the appearance period would expire in April 2014.

People v. The North River Ins. Co. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief