People v. Granite State Insurance

Bad Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 758·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1897·2003 Daily Journal DAR 14005·7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11099
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2003F041719California4,916 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gomes, J.

Granite State Insurance Company (Granite) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate summary judgment on a bail bond, contending that the court lost jurisdiction to enter summary judgment 90 days after the expiration of an extended 185-day period provided by Penal Code sections 1305 and 1306 for it to move to vacate forfeiture of the bond. Granite filed a timely notice of motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail, which was scheduled to be heard within 30 days of the expiration of the extended period. Pursuant to subdivision (i) of section 1305, the court found good cause to extend the hearing on the motion until April 24, 2002, at which date the court denied the motion. Summary judgment was entered within 90 days from the date of denial of the motion, but more than 90 days after the extended period expired.

The issue in this case is whether the provision which allows the court to hear the motion after expiration of the extended period (§ 1305, subd. (i)) has the effect of also extending the period (provided by § 1306) within which the court may enter summary judgment. We conclude that it does and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.