P. v. Ranger Ins. Co.
Defendant Ranger Insurance Company (Ranger), as surety on a $60,000 bail bond, challenges the trial courts refusal to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond, which was given to secure the court appearance of Skip Myers. Myers had been arrested on charges of burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459[1] and conspiracy to commit burglary in violation of section 182 when the bond was posted. The initial felony complaint, filed three days later, did not charge the conspiracy violation, only the burglary. The complaint was later amended, without notice to Ranger, to add a prior strike allegation under sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12armed robbery. Myers thereafter failed to appear in court and the bond was forfeited.
Ranger contends that the bond was exonerated as a consequence of the complaints amendment. This resulted, it argues, because the amendment unilaterally and materially increased Rangers risk on the bond without the notice required under section 1303. We conclude that section 1303, which on pain of exoneration requires notice to the surety when a bond is transferred to a new complaint after dismissal of a prior one, does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Nor does section 1305, which concerns forfeiture of the bond and which also requires notice to the surety upon that event, which Ranger received here. We further conclude that the particular amendment to the complaint was encompassed within the terms of the bond and that it accordingly did not materially increase Rangers surety risk. Accordingly, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Ranger Ins. Co.