People v. Allegheny Casualty Co. CA2/7 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Allegheny Casualty Co. CA2/7
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
    THE PEOPLE,                                             B320719;
    B320481
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Los Angeles County
    v.                                            Super. Ct. Nos. OSJ2579; OSJ2580)
    ALLEGHENY CASUALTY
    COMPANY,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
    County, Natalie P. Stone, Judge. Affirmed.
    Law Office of John Rorabaugh and John Mark Rorabaugh
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Richard P. Chastang,
    Assistant County Counsel, and Michael J. Gordon, Deputy
    County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ________________________
    INTRODUCTION
    Allegheny Casualty Company (Allegheny) appeals from two
    orders denying its motions to vacate forfeiture and exonerate two
    bail bonds and from the subsequent summary judgments entered
    against it. Allegheny contends the trial court lost jurisdiction
    over the bonds by failing to declare a forfeiture pursuant to Penal
    Code section 1305, subdivision (a),1 when defendant Sharon
    Denise Huff failed to appear at a hearing in her criminal case on
    February 24, 2021. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion in concluding that Huff was not ordered to personally
    appear on that date. Accordingly, we affirm the orders denying
    Allegheny’s motions to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bail
    bonds, and the orders entering summary judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    A.    Allegheny Posts a Bond to Secure Huff’s Release from
    Custody for Two Separate Incidents
    In July 2018 Huff was charged by complaint in case
    No. 8LB0765001 with one count of misdemeanor willful infliction
    of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a
    1    Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
    otherwise noted.
    2
    victim2 (§ 273.5, subd. (a).)3 Huff pleaded no contest, and the
    trial court placed her on three years’ probation, including the
    condition that she obey all laws.
    In April 2020 Huff was charged by complaint in case
    No. NA114285 with one felony count of willful infliction of
    corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim
    (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), one felony count of assault upon the person of
    another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm
    (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one misdemeanor count of a willful and
    knowing violation of a protective order or stay-away court order
    (§ 166, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court set bail at $120,000.
    As a result of the new allegations against Huff, the trial
    court revoked probation in case No. 8LB0765001 and set Huff’s
    bail at $50,000. In June 2020 Allegheny, by and through its
    agent Sunrise Bail Bonds, posted bond No. ASIM-1801 in the
    amount of $120,000 for the release of Huff from custody in case
    No. NA114285, and posted bond No. AS50K-96045 in the amount
    of $50,000 in case No. 8LB0765001. Accordingly, there are two
    bonds in this case involving Huff totaling $170,000.
    Both cases were considered together by the trial court.
    Following several continuances, counsel for Huff informed the
    trial court4 on January 21, 2021 that the “case is ready to resolve”
    but that “it’s just been difficult bringing Ms. Huff into court due
    2     We grant the People’s request to augment the record to
    include the complaint in case No. 8LB0765001. (Rules of Court,
    rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
    3     Section 273.5, subdivision (a), is a wobbler, and is
    punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor. (People v. Villalba
    (2023) 
    89 Cal.App.5th 659
    , 667.)
    4     Judge Chet L. Taylor.
    3
    to her age and high risk. My request would be to return for
    preliminary setting [i.e., the date for setting the preliminary
    hearing] on February 24th with the necessary time waiver. I’m
    going to try my very best to have her before the court.” The trial
    court confirmed that counsel was appearing under section 977,
    subdivision (b), and continued the hearing. The reporter’s
    transcript does not reflect the trial court ordered in open court
    that Huff was to appear at the next hearing date. But its minute
    order entered on January 21, 2021 states, “[t]he court orders the
    defendant to appear on the next court date,” which was
    February 24, 2021.
    On February 24, 2021 counsel for Huff appeared, stated
    that he filed a section 977, subdivision (b) waiver, and requested
    the hearing be continued to April 13, 2021 because he was “just
    trying to get Ms. Huff in the building so she can take the people’s
    offer.” The trial court5 indicated on the record that “I think under
    Emergency Rule 5(c)6 I can allow you to waive the 60-day rule
    today based on the fact that you’re 977(b),” and continued the
    matter to April 13, 2021.
    On April 13, 2021 counsel for Huff advised the court that
    “we’re ready to resolve this case. We have been for a very long
    time, but Ms. Huff’s medical needs have prevented her from
    coming into court along with the risk of COVID. . . . At this point,
    I would ask for another setting date so I can try to get her in. . . .
    5     Judge Debra A. Cole.
    6     Under Emergency Rule 5(c)(3) the court was required to
    “accept defense counsel’s representation that the defendant
    understands and agrees with waiving any right to appear unless
    the court has specific concerns in a particular matter about the
    validity of the waiver.”
    4
    This case has been ready to resolve for a long time. It’s just
    getting her into court. She lives in Vegas right now because she’s
    getting medical attention there.” In response, the People argued
    that “the People do want a [preliminary hearing] because we
    want her to come to court. . . . So at this point we either need to
    set it for prelim or I’d ask for a bench warrant or something
    because she’s not coming to court even though we do want to
    resolve the case.”
    The trial court agreed with the People and set May 26,
    2021 as the preliminary hearing date. The trial court advised
    Huff’s counsel that “there is not going to be more time,
    counsel. . . . The defendant must be present on that court
    date. . . . Probation remains revoked. Bond to stand on that.
    We’ll set it for probation violation hearing setting on that same
    day, May 26, 2021.”
    B.      After Huff Fails To Appear, the Trial Court Orders Bail
    Forfeited, Denies the Motions to Discharge the Forfeiture
    Order and Exonerate Bail, and Enters Summary Judgment
    On May 26, 2021 counsel for Huff appeared and notified
    the trial court that he “lost contact with her.” The trial court
    ordered bail forfeited in both cases because Huff did not appear
    despite the court’s April 13, 2021 order directing her to appear on
    May 26. The court clerk mailed notice of the forfeiture orders to
    Allegheny and Sunrise Bail Bonds on June 4, 2021.
    On November 5, 2021 Allegheny moved to discharge the
    forfeiture orders and exonerate bail. In its motions, Allegheny
    argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction over each bond when
    it failed to declare a forfeiture on February 24, 2021. (See § 1305,
    subd. (a)(1)(D) [“A court shall in open court declare forfeited the
    5
    undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail if,
    without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear” on “[a]ny
    other occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the
    defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required”].) Allegheny
    filed supplemental briefs on January 25, 2022 arguing that “[t]he
    mere presence of a 977 waiver is not an excuse for the
    defendant’s failure to appear” where the trial court ordered a
    defendant to appear. The record does not reflect the People filed
    an opposition brief to either motion, but the People were present
    at the hearing on Allegheny’s motions.7
    On March 11, 2022 the trial court8 heard argument and
    denied the motions to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail, and
    then subsequently entered summary judgment against
    Allegheny. (See § 1306, subd. (a) [“When any bond is forfeited
    and the period of time specified in Section 1305 has elapsed
    without the forfeiture having been set aside, the court which has
    declared the forfeiture shall enter a summary judgment against
    each bondsman named in the bond in the amount for which the
    bondsman is bound.”].)9 The clerk’s notice of entry of judgments
    7     The People’s failure to file a written opposition did not
    relieve Allegheny of its burden as the moving party to show it
    was entitled to relief. “Burden is upon the bonding company
    seeking to set aside the forfeiture to establish by competent
    evidence that its case falls within the four corners of these
    statutory requirements.” (People v. American Bankers Ins. Co.
    (1992) 
    4 Cal.App.4th 348
    , 354; accord, People v. American Surety
    Ins. Co. (1999) 
    75 Cal.App.4th 719
    , 726.)
    8     Judge Natalie P. Stone.
    9     “‘Summary judgment following a declaration of forfeiture is
    a consent judgment entered without a hearing pursuant to the
    terms of the bail bond.’” (People v. Financial Casualty & Surety,
    6
    on the forfeited bonds and demand for payment were entered on
    March 15, 2022 (case Nos. OSJ2579 and OSJ2580).10
    Allegheny timely appealed. Because both appeals raise the
    identical issue, although as to two different bonds involving the
    same person, we consider the appeals together.
    DISCUSSION
    A.     Governing Law and Standard of Review
    A bail bond “‘“‘is a contract between the surety and the
    government whereby the surety acts as a guarantor of the
    defendant’s appearance in court under the risk of forfeiture of the
    bond.’”’” (People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016)
    
    2 Cal.5th 35
    , 42.) When a person for whom a bail bond has been
    posted and against whom a criminal complaint has been filed
    fails to appear as required by law, the court must declare the bail
    forfeited. (§ 1305, subd. (a); see County of Los Angeles v.
    Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2018) 
    5 Cal.5th 309
    , 312;
    People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 
    33 Cal.4th 653
    , 657.)
    Inc. (2021) 
    73 Cal.App.5th 33
    , 37, quoting People v. The North
    River Ins. Co. (2020) 
    53 Cal.App.5th 559
    , 567.) “The only issue in
    a challenge to the summary judgment is whether it was entered
    pursuant to the terms of the consent, which requires compliance
    with Penal Code sections 1305 and 1306.” (People v. American
    Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 
    238 Cal.App.4th 653
    , 1047.)
    10    “While bail bond proceedings occur in connection with
    criminal prosecutions, they are independent from and collateral
    to the prosecutions and are civil in nature.” (People v. American
    Contractors Indemnity Co., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 657.)
    7
    Section 1305, one of the provisions governing bail
    forfeiture, provides: “(a)(1) A court shall in open court declare
    forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property
    deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to
    appear for any of the following: [¶] (A) Arraignment.
    [¶] (B) Trial. [¶] (C) Judgment. [¶] (D) Any other occasion
    prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant’s
    presence in court is lawfully required. [¶] (E) To surrender
    himself or herself in execution of the judgment after appeal.”
    Once the court declares forfeiture as provided in
    section 1305 the surety that posted the bond has 180 days (plus
    five days for mailing) after the clerk of court mails a notice of
    forfeiture to move to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond.
    (§ 1305, subd. (c)(1); People v. Lexington National Ins. Co. (2007)
    
    147 Cal.App.4th 1192
    , 1198 [“‘When the bail has served its
    purpose, the surety will be “exonerated,” i.e., released from the
    obligation. Exoneration normally occurs on termination of the
    proceedings in some manner or on return of the defendant to
    custody.’”].) Upon a showing of good cause, the court may extend
    this appearance period by no more than 180 days from the date
    the trial court orders the extension. (§ 1305.4; People v.
    Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 44.)
    If the forfeiture has not been set aside by the end of the
    appearance period, including any extension, “the court which has
    declared the forfeiture shall enter a summary judgment against
    each bondsman named in the bond in the amount for which the
    bondsman is bound.” (§ 1306, subd. (a); People v. American
    Contractors Indemnity Co., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 657 [“The
    surety that posted the bond . . . has a statutory ‘appearance’
    period in which either to produce the accused in court and have
    8
    the forfeiture set aside, or to demonstrate other circumstances
    requiring the court to vacate the forfeiture. If the forfeiture is not
    set aside by the end of the appearance period, the court is
    required to enter summary judgment against the surety.”].)
    If the trial court does not declare a forfeiture when required
    by section 1305, it loses jurisdiction over the bail bond and lacks
    authority to enter summary judgment against the bail bond
    company. (See People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. (2004)
    
    125 Cal.App.4th 547
    , 550 [“We conclude the trial court’s failure to
    declare a forfeiture in open court, as mandated by section 1305,
    subdivision (a), resulted in the court’s loss of jurisdiction over the
    bail bond. Because the court did not have fundamental
    jurisdiction when it entered the summary judgment, the
    judgment was necessarily void, and subject to collateral attack at
    any time.”]; accord, People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1971)
    
    5 Cal.3d 898
    , 907 [“It follows from the foregoing that the court’s
    failure to declare a forfeiture upon a nonappearance without
    sufficient excuse, either where no excuse is offered or where the
    finding of an excuse constitutes an abuse of discretion, deprives
    the court of jurisdiction to later declare a forfeiture.”]; see also
    § 1305, subd. (a)(1)(D).) We strictly construe the applicable
    forfeiture statutes in favor of the surety in order to avoid the
    “harsh results” of forfeiture. (People v. International Fidelity Ins.
    Co. (2018) 
    20 Cal.App.5th 345
    , 354; People v. The North River
    Ins. Co. (2018) 
    31 Cal.App.5th 797
    , 804.)
    A trial court’s order granting or denying a motion to vacate
    the forfeiture of a bail bond is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    (See People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2010) 
    182 Cal.App.4th 582
    , 586-
    588 [applying abuse of discretion standard to “a record in conflict”
    9
    where reporter’s transcript and clerk’s minutes differed on
    whether forfeiture was ordered in open court].)
    B.     The Trial Court Properly Denied Allegheny’s Motions
    Because Huff Was Not Required to Personally Appear on
    February 24, 2021
    Allegheny argues Huff was ordered to appear personally in
    court on February 24, 2021 by the trial court’s January 21, 2021
    minute order. In Allegheny’s view, the trial court’s failure to
    declare a forfeiture on February 24, 2021 resulted in the court’s
    loss of jurisdiction over the bail bond and the summary judgment
    against it on March 11, 2022. We are unpersuaded. The trial
    court did not err in ruling that, notwithstanding the January 21,
    2021 minute order, Huff had not been ordered to appear
    personally at the preliminary hearing setting date on
    February 24, 2021.
    1.      Huff Was Not Required By Statute To Be Present for
    the Preliminary Hearing Setting Date and Appeared
    Through Counsel
    “‘[S]ection 977 requires a defendant to be present at the five
    fundamental proceedings and entitles [her] to be present at all
    others.’” (People v. Gutierrez (2003) 
    29 Cal.4th 1196
    , 1203,
    quoting People v. Ochoa (2001) 
    26 Cal.4th 398
    , 435.) Section 977,
    subdivision (b)(1), provides: “Except as provided in
    subdivision (c), in all cases in which a felony is charged, the
    accused shall be physically present at the [1] arraignment, [2] at
    the time of plea, [3] during the preliminary hearing, [4] during
    those portions of the trial when evidence is taken before the trier
    of fact, and [5] at the time of the imposition of sentence. The
    10
    accused shall be physically or remotely present at all other
    proceedings unless they waive their right to be physically or
    remotely present, with leave of court and with approval by
    defendant’s counsel.”
    Subdivision (b)(2) of section 977 further provides that,
    “[t]he waiver of a defendant’s right to be physically or remotely
    present may be in writing and filed with the court or, with the
    court’s consent, may be entered personally by the defendant or by
    the defendant’s counsel of record.” (People v. Safety National
    Casualty Corp. (2016) 
    62 Cal.4th 703
    , 716 [“with respect to ‘all
    other proceedings’ at which the defendant seeks to be absent, the
    standard waiver form set out in section 977, subdivision (b)(2)
    contemplates a situation where a defendant is absent from
    court”].)
    In this case, February 24, 2021 was the date for the setting
    of the preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing setting date is
    not one of the five mandatory hearings where a defendant is
    required to be present. (See § 977, subd. (a); People v. Safety
    National Casualty Corp., 
    supra,
     62 Cal.4th at p. 716 [“The five
    mandatory proceedings described in the preceding sentence of
    section 977(b)(1) (arraignment, plea, preliminary hearing, trial,
    sentencing) reflect the Legislature’s concern that the felony
    defendant be present at case-related proceedings that occur in
    open court.”].) Further, there is no dispute that Huff’s counsel
    had entered a valid section 977 waiver excusing Huff’s absence at
    that hearing.
    Huff’s appearance could only be mandatory if she had been
    ordered to appear personally in court on February 24, 2021. As
    explained in People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 
    6 Cal.App.4th 1301
    ,
    1304: “A defendant’s presence is ‘lawfully required’ when there is
    11
    ‘a specific court order commanding his appearance at a date and
    time certain’ [citation] or when a defendant has notice because he
    or she is present when the date and time for a mandatory
    appearance are set, even though the court did not specifically
    order his or her personal presence.” Accordingly, we turn to
    whether Huff had been ordered to appear at the preliminary
    hearing setting date.
    2.     Under the Circumstances Presented, the Reporter’s
    Transcript Was Entitled to “Greater Credence” Than
    the January 21, 2021 Minute Order
    The minute order of January 21, 2021 states that, “[t]he
    court orders the defendant to appear on the next court date.” But
    that is not the end of the analysis. As further explained below, in
    determining whether the minute order accurately reflected the
    proceedings for purposes of a bail forfeiture motion, the trial
    court could properly examine the reporter’s transcript (which
    does not order Huff’s personal appearance) to determine whether
    Huff was ordered to appear in court on the date in question.
    In this context, a trial court is entitled to resolve a conflict
    between the clerk’s minute order and the court reporter’s
    transcript to determine which is “entitled to greater credence.”
    (People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2010) 
    182 Cal.App.4th 582
    , 586; id. at
    p. 588 [“We have a record in conflict on that issue, with a
    reporter’s transcript, which does not indicate any bail forfeiture
    and clerk’s minutes, which do”; resolving conflict in favor of
    reporter’s transcript]; see People v. Thompson (2009)
    
    180 Cal.App.4th 974
    , 978 [“When the record is in conflict and
    cannot be harmonized, “‘. . . that part of the record will prevail,
    which, because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is entitled to
    12
    greater credence.”’”]; In re Evans (1945) 
    70 Cal.App.2d 213
    , 216
    [“whether the recitals in the clerk’s minutes should prevail as
    against contrary statements in the reporter’s transcript, must
    depend upon the circumstances of each particular case”];
    People v. Smith (1983) 
    33 Cal.3d 596
    , 599 [same].)
    The trial court’s order denying Allegheny’s motions to
    vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bail bonds does not explain
    its reasoning. But when the trial court denied Allegheny’s
    motions, it necessarily determined Huff had not been ordered to
    appear on February 24, 2021. The trial court did not err. Aside
    from the January 2021 minute order, there was nothing in the
    record before the trial court indicating that Huff had been
    ordered to appear at the February 24, 2021 preliminary hearing
    setting date. The reporter’s transcript for January 21, 2021 does
    not indicate the trial court verbally ordered Huff to appear
    personally at the next hearing date; that is, the trial court did not
    make such an order in open court with counsel present. Further,
    as noted by the People, the January 21, 2021 transcript “includes
    what appears to be the entirety of the hearing . . . including the
    court calling the matter, the initial[] stated appearances by the
    parties, a short discussion about the status of the case, a request
    to continue the setting hearing to the next month, the court
    continuing the hearing to February 24, 2021, and farewell
    statements.” As in People v. Bankers Ins. Co., supra,
    182 Cal.App.4th at p. 587, “There is nothing which suggests the
    reporter’s transcript is in any way incomplete.” And Allegheny
    does not dispute the reporter’s transcript is complete.
    Under this scenario, the trial court reasonably concluded
    that where there is a conflict between the minute order and the
    reporter’s transcript, that “the reporter’s transcript [was] entitled
    13
    to greater credence” than the clerk’s minute order. (People v.
    Bankers Ins. Co., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 586; see In re P.A.
    (2012) 
    211 Cal.App.4th 23
    , 30, fn. 4 [“‘[c]onflicts between the
    reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts are generally presumed to be
    clerical in nature and resolved in favor of the reporter’s transcript
    unless the particular circumstances dictate otherwise’”]; see also
    In re T.G. (2020) 
    58 Cal.App.5th 275
    , 298 fn. 20 [“Throughout our
    review of the record in these appeals, however, we have
    encountered minute orders that include findings that were not
    made or, on occasion, are in direct conflict with the statements as
    reported in the hearing transcripts. Even under better
    circumstances the record of the court’s oral pronouncements
    prevails over conflicting minute orders.”].)
    Allegheny contends “the record is not in conflict,” and that
    “[n]othing in the record conflicts with th[e] order to appear,” but
    it does not persuasively explain why the trial court abused its
    discretion in ruling otherwise in light of the reporter’s transcript.
    Allegheny further contends that “the minutes are ‘no less a part
    of the record than the transcript of the oral proceedings,’ and . . .
    are generally more accessible than a reporter’s transcript.”
    (People v. Allegheny Casualty Co. (2007) 
    41 Cal.4th 704
    , 713
    fn. 3.) But as People v. Bankers Ins. Co. at page 587 to 588
    observed, “the court in Allegheny was faced with a situation in
    which there was no reporter’s transcript because no court
    reporter was present at the forfeiture of bail proceeding. The
    clerk’s minutes reflected bail had been declared forfeited, but not
    that the declaration had been made in open court. . . . Thus, our
    case is distinguishable from Allegheny. We do not have a record
    silent on the issue of whether the declaration was made in open
    court. We have a record in conflict on that issue, with a
    14
    reporter’s transcript, which does not indicate bail forfeiture and
    clerk’s minutes, which do.” As we explained above, the trial court
    here was entitled to resolve the conflict in the record between the
    reporter’s transcript and the minute order on the issue of
    whether Huff was ordered on January 21, 2021 to appear at the
    February 26 hearing and determine the reporter’s transcript was
    entitled to greater credence.
    Indeed, the trial court could reasonably have concluded the
    January 21, 2021 minute order was simply incorrect.11 By way of
    contrast, the trial court on April 13, 2021 unequivocally stated on
    the record that “[t]he defendant must be present” at the next
    hearing on May 26, 2021. This affirmative statement, which is
    consistent with the April 13, 2021 minute order requiring her to
    appear, was sufficient to “lawfully require” Huff’s presence at the
    next hearing date. (See People v. Lexington National Ins. Corp.
    (2016) 
    1 Cal.App.5th 1144
    , 1149.) Thus, when Huff failed to
    appear on May 26, 2021 only then did the trial court order
    forfeiture of the bonds.
    C.    The Trial Court Properly Entered the Summary Judgments
    Against Allegheny
    As outlined above, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion in concluding Huff was not ordered to personally
    11     The record before us reflects that at least one other minute
    order was erroneous. The February 24, 2021 minute order states
    that, “Defendant is present in court.” But the reporter’s
    transcript clearly indicates Huff was not present and her counsel
    was “appearing 977(b) for defendant.” In deciding the underlying
    motions, the trial court was entitled to resolve such conflicts in
    favor of the reporter’s transcript.
    15
    appear at the preliminary hearing setting date on February 24,
    2021. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Allegheny’s
    motions to discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail, and properly
    entered summary judgment against Allegheny in each matter.
    (See § 1306, subd. (a); People v. American Contractors Indemnity
    Co., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 657; People v. American Contractors
    Indemnity Co., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047; People v.
    Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 
    10 Cal.App.5th 369
    , 378
    [“If the forfeiture is not vacated, the trial court must then enter
    summary judgment against the surety for ‘the amount of the
    bond plus costs.’”].)
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the orders of summary judgment and the trial
    court’s orders denying Allegheny’s motions to discharge forfeiture
    and exonerate bail. The People are awarded their costs on
    appeal.
    MARTINEZ, J.
    We concur:
    SEGAL, Acting P. J.            EVENSON, J.*
    *     Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by
    the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
    California Constitution.
    16
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B320481

Filed Date: 1/18/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/19/2024