§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

27 Cited authorities

  1. People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.

    33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 420 times
    Holding that a voidable judgment is "valid until it is set aside"

  2. People v. Jefferson

    21 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that the minimum 15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement

  3. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  4. People v. Duran

    67 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 88 times
    Observing section 1237.1 by its terms applies only to appeals by a defendant but noting "[t]he constitutional problem that would be presented if the statute were to be construed to allow such corrections when sought by the People, but to refuse it when sought by the defendant"

  5. People v. Granite State Ins. Co.

    114 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 63 times
    Distinguishing between postponement of the 90–day period and extension of the exoneration period

  6. People v. United States Fire Ins. Co.

    242 Cal.App.4th 991 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 41 times
    In People v. United Sates Fire Ins. Co. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 991, 1008, the court declined to follow Accredited Surety and Bankers on the ground those cases improperly held that the 180-day extension of the appearance period was calculated from the date the appearance period ended, rather than the date on which the trial court ruled on a timely motion to extend the appearance period.

  7. People v. Accredited Surety Casualty Co.

    230 Cal.App.4th 548 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 39 times
    In Accredited, the bail agent stated that "'[b]ased on [his] prior experience with defendants in custody, [he] believed'" the defendant would be returned to Fresno County after "'his case was completed in Sacramento.'"

  8. County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg National Insurance Co.

    235 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 32 times
    Finding § 1305.4 provided surety with statutory right to an oral hearing and it was prejudicial per se for trial court to deny

  9. People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. Inc.

    137 Cal.App.4th 1349 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 38 times
    In Accredited, the Court of Appeal found an abuse of discretion in the denial of the surety's section 1305.4 motion because the investigator knew where the defendant resided at various times, with whom he associated, what actions the defendant had taken, and had received detailed tips about the defendant's current whereabouts.

  10. People v. Ranger Ins., Co.

    81 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 43 times
    Holding there was no abuse of discretion in denying the extension motion based in part on the declaration of the surety's investigator that did not "explain what a 'positive address' was, how he was able to find it, how he knew it was a bona fide address for [the defendant], and whether the address was still good"

  11. Section 1305 - Forfeiture

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1305   Cited 643 times
    Applying in "cases where a defendant is in custody . . . , and the prosecuting agency elects not to seek extradition"

  12. Section 1305.4 - Extension of 180-day period

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1305.4   Cited 238 times
    Assuming good cause existed