California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
APPEAL from judgments and orders of the Superior Court of Shasta County, 179179, 14CV0086 Monica Marlow, Judge.
John M. Rorabaugh and E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant.
Rubin E. Cruse, Jr., County Counsel, and James R. Ross, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc. (Accredited Surety), the surety on two bail bonds, appeals from an order denying its Penal Code section 1305.4 motion to extend the 185-day appearance period, an order denying its Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 (hereafter section 1008) motion to reconsider, and the summary judgments on the two bail bonds. Accredited Surety contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying the two motions. We find no abuse of discretion and shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the same day in April 2013, Accredited Surety posted two bonds for the release of Cale Brian Maisano, the defendant in two underlying criminal matters (People v Maisano (Super. Ct. Shasta County, 2014, No. MC RD CR-F-12-006931-002) (No. CRF12-6931); People v. Maisano (Super. Ct. Shasta County, 2011, No. MC RD CR-F-10-0005222-002) (No. CFR10-5222)). In case No. CRF10-5222, the amount of the bond was $10, 000; in case No. CRF12-6931, the amount of the bond was $75, 000. Maisano failed to appear in court on May 13, 2013, and the trial court declared the bails forfeited. The appearance period expired on November 14, 2013.
On November 13, 2013, Accredited Surety filed a motion to extend the appearance period under Penal Code section 1305.4. To support this motion, Accredited Surety attached the declaration of the bail agent, Sheri D’Angelo, of Bail Bond Connections, detailing the efforts to return Maisano to court. Between May 13, 2013, when the trial court declared bail forfeited, and November 3, 2013, the bail agent made approximately 15 phone calls to various contacts in Maisano’s current file and former bail files, including numbers for Maisano, his friends and associates, people for whom he had done caretaking, his girlfriend, and his mother. Many of the numbers were disconnected. To the extent the bail agent was able to contact anyone, none
had current information on Maisano’s whereabouts. A number of Maisano’s “associates” provided general information. One associate took the bail agent to a house where Maisano was “known to stay”; Maisano was not there. Another associate told the bail agent “he had heard” that Maisano had just returned from Washington state, but had no other information. Later, that associate told the bail agent he had seen Maisano in a red Honda. He could not provide a license plate number. Another associate mentioned Maisano’s brother, and said he would try to get the brother’s contact information. One associate took the bail agent to a home where Maisano had been a caretaker. Maisano was not there. Another associate of Maisano’s called the bail agent and said Maisano had contacted a mutual friend and told them he was living in a trailer in the mountains and did not have cell service. The bail agent made approximately 10 inquiries with various sources to confirm Maisano was not being held in custody anywhere; he was not. The bail agent had her old computer files on Maisano’s prior bail recovered. The bail agent conducted Facebook searches for Maisano’s girlfriend and his children. The bail agent conducted approximately 10 searches relative to Maisano’s girlfriend. She also conducted asset searches on Maisano and his girlfriend. She found the girlfriend’s parent’s property but did not find Maisano or his girlfriend. The bail agent obtained a Washington state phone number for Maisano’s mother. After leaving a few messages, she spoke with Maisano’s mother who said she did not have a number to reach him. Maisano’s mother stated he checked in every week or so and she would tell him to contact the bail agent.
The hearing on the motion to extend was set for December 2, 2013. Accredited Surety’s attorney did not appear. Accordingly, the ...