People v. Lexington National Ins. Co. CA2/8

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. Lexington National Ins. Co. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B303868

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA099064) v.

LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Francis B. Bennett and Victoria B. Wilson, Judges. Affirmed. Law Offices of Brendan Pegg and Brendan Pegg for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Lexington National Insurance Company appeals from the denial of its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate its bond. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant is a surety that posted a $50,000 bond (bond No. 2018DD009419) for Suzen Browne who had been charged with numerous felonies, including burglary. Browne is not a party to this appeal. On October 24, 2018, Browne failed to appear in court. The superior court declared the bond forfeited and issued a bench warrant for Browne. Defendant obtained an extension of time within which to return Browne to custody through November 20, 2019. Shortly before the extended appearance date expired, defendant filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate its bond. The motion was based on the declaration of defendant’s agent that Browne had been taken into custody in Pennsylvania for an offense committed there but had been released, purportedly because there were no active warrants for Browne in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). At the hearing on defendant’s motion, the district attorney’s office presented a document and represented that it was a printout from NCIC showing that the warrant for Browne had been entered on October 24, 2018. The court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion contained the same exhibits as the original motion but added a copy of the NCIC printout and a declaration from defendant’s counsel containing hearsay conversations with authorities in the Pennsylvania jail system who said they did not, as a matter of policy, place holds for out-of-state warrants that are listed as