P v. SURETY AND CASUALTY CO
Filed 3/28/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY CO., INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | C049492
(Super. Ct. No. 04F02797)
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Ronald W. Tochterman, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Sacramento Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed with directions.
Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez, for Defendant and Appellant.
Robert A. Ryan, Jr., County Counsel, and John Reed, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The trial court denied defendant Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc. (Accredited) an extension of time to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond under Penal Code[1] section 1305.4. On appeal, Accredited contends the trial court erred because Accredited showed it made a reasonable attempt to locate the defendant whose release was secured by the bond. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in determining there was no showing of good cause to extend the time period, so we reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2004, Accredited posted a bail bond in the amount of $100,000 to secure the release of Gregory Lee Thomas from custody. After pleading no contest to a charge of possession of cocaine base for sale, Thomas failed to appear at a sentencing hearing on July 21, 2004. The trial court declared the bail bond forfeited. The clerk mailed a notice of forfeiture to Accredited on July 29, 2004. The 185th day from the July 29 mailing was January 30, 2005.
On January 26, 2005, Accredited moved to extend the time to vacate the forfeiture pursuant to section 1305.4.[2] Accredited filed the declaration of Herbert J. Tillman, a bail agent, in support of its motion. Tillman's declaration detailed his attempts to locate Thomas. The declaration contained seven entries describing information Tillman received and actions he took after receiving the notice of forfeiture.
On August 3, Tillman learned Thomas was staying with a friend and would be returning to that location. He conducted surveillance for six hours, and he stopped several subjects thought to be Thomas.
On August 24, Tillman learned Thomas was residing with family members just outside the Sacramento area. He contacted local authorities, and he and the authorities put the apartment and surrounding area under surveillance. After four hours of covert activity, they entered the apartment and discovered Thomas had fled. Tillman later determined Thomas had been tipped off by family members.
On September 3, Tillman hired a fugitive recovery specialist to assist him with returning Thomas to custody. They learned from a reliable source about two possible local addresses for Thomas. After surveillance and investigation, both addresses were found to be negative.
On September 17, after â€
