Filed 10/1/19; Certified for Publication 10/28/19 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H044568 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1472577) v. THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. After a criminal defendant failed to appear at his arraignment, the trial court forfeited the bail bond and thereafter denied the bail surety’s motion to vacate that forfeiture. On appeal, the surety argues it is entitled to vacatur of the forfeiture and tolling of the appearance period because defendant suffered from a “temporary disability” under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (e), a statute the surety asserts is applicable where a defendant voluntarily flees the country and is unable to return to the United States. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s summary judgment against the surety. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2014, Respondent People of the State of California (the People) filed a misdemeanor complaint against Carlos Eder Hernandez (defendant), charging him with driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (count one) and driving in violation of a license restriction related to a driving under the influence offence in violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.2, subdivision (b) (count two). Defendant thereafter entered a contract with appellants The North River Insurance Company and its bail agent, Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively, the surety), under which the surety posted a $35,000 bond for defendant’s release from custody. The surety promised to assure defendant’s appearance for arraignment in May 2015. The contract between the surety and defendant included an agreement that, if defendant left the court’s jurisdiction for any reason, he would “voluntarily return to the state of original jurisdiction” and “waive extradition proceeding [sic].” Prior to the arraignment hearing, defendant’s indemnitor notified the surety of her concern defendant would not appear at the hearing. On the day of the arraignment hearing, the indemnitor informed the surety defendant told her he was in Mexico. In November 2015, the surety located defendant in Jaltocan, Mexico. When defendant did not appear for his scheduled arraignment, the trial court forfeited the bail bond, mailing notice of the forfeiture to the surety on May 15, 2015. Under Penal Code 1 section 1305, subdivision (c), the court was required to vacate the forfeiture if defendant appeared in court, either voluntarily or in custody, within 180 days of the date of forfeiture. Pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (b), which extends time by five days where notice of forfeiture is mailed, that appearance period was scheduled to expire on November 16, 2015. (§ 1305, subd. (b)(1).) On November 12, 2015, the surety filed a motion to extend the appearance period further pursuant to section 1305.4, 2 which the trial court granted, extending the period to June 11, 2016. On June 10, 2016, the surety filed a motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond under section 1305, subdivision (f) 3; alternatively, the surety sought to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals