P. v. Safety Nat. Casualty Corp. CA5

Filed 3/19/13 P. v. Safety Nat. Casualty Corp. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F063828 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. v. VCU244238/DCF221840)

SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl D. Ferguson, Judge. E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant. Kathleen Bales-Lang, County Counsel, and Elizabeth A. Klotz, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

In this bail forfeiture action, appellant, Safety National Casualty Corporation (Safety National), challenges the trial court’s order denying a motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail. According to Safety National, the trial court lost jurisdiction and the bond was exonerated by operation of law when Safety National was not given notice of transfer of bail after the criminal complaint was amended to charge the defendant with felonies rather than misdemeanors. Safety National argues that the amendment was tantamount to a dismissal of the original complaint and therefore Safety National was entitled to notice of the bail transfer under Penal Code1 section 1303. Safety National further contends that the trial court entered summary judgment prematurely. Contrary to Safety National’s position, notice of a bail transfer was not required. By the express language of the bond, Safety National undertook to ensure the defendant’s appearance to answer charges in the complaint or “in duly authorized amendments” to the complaint. Although the defendant was subject to a greater potential maximum penalty under the amended complaint, those charges were based on the same acts alleged in the original complaint. Further, the court properly entered summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Defendant, Hector Aguilar, was arrested and held to answer for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. A complaint was filed charging Aguilar with misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b), and 14601.2, subdivision (a).