People v. The North River Insurance Company CA4/1

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. The North River Insurance Company CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081654

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- 00042770-CU-EN-CTL) THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant,

BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maureen F. Hallahan and Laura W. Halgren, Judges. Affirmed. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant and Appellant and Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, and B. George Seikaly, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bail Agent) and The North River Insurance Company (Surety) posted two bail bonds guaranteeing a criminal defendant’s court appearances. On appeal, they contest the trial court’s denial of their motion to vacate the forfeiture of one of those bonds and the subsequent summary judgment on that bond. We resolve this matter by memorandum opinion and affirm. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. At the defendant’s March 2021 arraignment, the court ordered him to appear at an April preliminary hearing. The bond at issue was executed several weeks later and required the defendant to appear at the April hearing. At the April hearing, the court accepted defense counsel’s appearance under Penal Code section 977 on her client’s behalf. At defense counsel’s request, the court continued the preliminary hearing and set a May readiness hearing. The court acknowledged defense counsel had section “977 authority,” and counsel agreed. In the minutes, checkboxes reflect the defendant was “not present,” rather than “failed to appear,” and he was ordered to appear for the May hearing. At the May hearing, the court declared the “bond is forfeited” since “[t]he defendant was ordered to be here today . . . and . . . he’s not here.” The minutes reflect the defendant was “not present” and “failed to appear.” Bail Agent moved to vacate the forfeiture of the bond, claiming that, as relevant here, because the defendant failed to appear at the April hearing and no sufficient excuse was offered for his nonappearance, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond when it failed to declare forfeiture at that time.