P. v. Fairmont Specialty Group
Appellant Fairmont Specialty Group (Fairmont) appeals from an order denying its motion for relief from bail forfeiture or to toll time and from the subsequent summary judgment entered in favor of the People (respondent). Fairmont maintains that it was entitled to exoneration of the bond because it filed a timely motion for exoneration on the basis that the defendant, Charles Caradine, was in custody in Arizona, was permanently unable to appear, and the prosecuting agency chose not to seek extradition. (Pen. Code, 1305, subds. (d), (g).)[1] It alternatively maintains that the court erred in not tolling time under section 1305, subdivision (e), based on the temporary disability of the defendants incarceration in Arizona. Respondent argues that the court could not order tolling because Fairmont had already received an extension of the appearance period, and that,in any event, Fairmonts motion was not accompanied by competent evidence demonstrating that the individual in custody in Arizona was actually the defendant. Court reverse and remand.
Comments on P. v. Fairmont Specialty Group