Basica

People v. Basica

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2024A166580California1,942 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

After the Alameda County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant Florian Basica with second degree robbery under Penal Code section 211, 1 the surety posted a $60,000 bond for Basica’s release from custody. Months later, Basica failed to appear for his preliminary hearing, and the trial court declared the bond forfeited pursuant to section 1305. Under the same statute, if Basica were to appear “either voluntarily or in custody after surrender or arrest in court within” 185 “days of the date of mailing of the notice” informing the surety that the bond was declared forfeited, the court would, “on its own motion . . . , direct the order of forfeiture to be vacated and the bond exonerated.” (§ 1305, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1).) 2 The bail agent moved under section 1305.4 for an extension of this exoneration period. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court granted the extension in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Before that extension expired, the trial court granted a second motion under section 1305.4, further extending the exoneration period to July 3, 2022. On June 22, 2022, appellants filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and…

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.