California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Extension of Time

Standard of Review-Trial court’s ruling on a motion for extension of time under Penal Code Sec. 1305.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2.  The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Concluding Fairmont Failed         To Show Good Cause To Extend the Appearance Period

a.  General principles and standard of review

            Within 180 days of the forfeiture of a bail bond (plus five days for mailing of the notice), the surety may seek to have the order of forfeiture vacated and the bond exonerated on the ground the defendant has voluntarily appeared or is in custody following his or her arrest.  (§ 1305, subd. (c)(1).)  Section 1305.4 allows the surety to file a motion, based on good cause, for an order extending the 180-day period. 

            “A further extension is not automatic.  [A surety] has to earn any additional time by a showing of good cause.  That means an explanation of what efforts [the surety] made to locate [defendant] during the initial 180 days, and why such efforts were unsuccessful.”  (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 676, 681.)  “Efforts by a surety during the first 180 days might not always translate into good cause for an extension if it is unclear that a defendant will likely be captured given more time.  While the Ranger court was concerned that a surety would sit on its hands for 180 days and then come to court looking for an extension ([People v.] Ranger [Ins. Co.], supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 682), neither can the surety be entitled to another 180 days simply by demonstrating it exerted some effort.  The inquiry must be prospective as well as retrospective; otherwise, an extension does not serve the statute’s policy of returning fleeing defendants to custody.  That policy is best served by the surety showing that another 180 days might be productive.”  (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1357.) 

            “Given the underlying policy of avoiding forfeitures in favor of bringing defendants before the court, a trial court, faced with a section 1305.4 motion for extension, should draw all inferences in favor of the surety.  [Citation.]  The good cause showing under section 1305.4 is a low threshold for the movant.  If the surety demonstrates good cause by showing due diligence in the initial 180 days, a reasonable likelihood of success of capturing the defendant in a subsequent 180 days, and any other relevant circumstances, the court should grant the motion.”  (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358.)

            The trial court’s ruling on a motion for extension of time under section 1305.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 638, 644; People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 1357; People v. Alistar Ins. Co. (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 122, 127; People v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 679-680.)

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents
Briefs-Legal Argument-Table of Contents