Filed 9/18/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B344006
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos.
v. 25AVSJ0013,
XNOMA080612–02)
BANKERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants and
Appellants.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los Angeles, Theresa R. McGonigle, Judge. Affirmed.
Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Keever Rhodes Muir,
Assistant County Counsel, and Erin A. Chang, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
A surety, Bankers Insurance Company, and its bail agent,
Avengers Bail Bonds (collectively, the surety), appeal from a trial
court’s judgment in the amount of $11,181.95, representing the
costs of extraditing the criminal defendant (the defendant) for
whom the surety had posted a bail bond. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2021, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney filed a complaint alleging that the defendant committed
battery resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of Penal
Code section 243, subdivision (d). 1 On March 2, 2021, the surety
posted a bail bond in the amount of $110,000 to secure the
defendant’s release from custody.
On September 7, 2022, after the defendant failed to appear
for a pretrial hearing, the trial court declared the bond forfeited
and mailed a notice of forfeiture to the surety, pursuant to section
1305, subdivision (b). The notice provided that the forfeiture
would become final on March 17, 2023, that is, in 180 days, plus
five days for mailing, unless the surety surrendered the
defendant to the court or to custody before that date (the
appearance period).
On March 13, 2023, the surety filed a request for a 180-day
extension of the appearance period.
On March 22, 2023, the surety sent to the District Attorney
a request for the extradition of the defendant. The surety
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
advised the District Attorney that it had located the defendant in
Texas and requested approval of his extradition to Los Angeles.
On March 23, 2023, the District Attorney advised the
surety that the he would seek the defendant’s extradition and
provided the surety with “notice that the People will move the
court to order that [the surety] pay the costs of extradition,
pursuant to ... [s]ection 1306[, subdivision] (b)” and “provide an
accounting of the actual costs upon the defendant’s return to
court and prior to the court exonerating the bond.”
On April 14, 2023, the trial court granted the surety’s
request for a 180-day extension of the appearance, to October 11,
2023.
On April 28, 2023, following his extradition from Texas, the
defendant appeared before the trial court. The prosecutor
requested “that any exoneration of the bail … be subject to the
cost of extradition pursuant to ... section 1306[, subdivision] (b).”
The court granted the request and issued a minute order stating
that the bond forfeiture was “exonerated subject to the costs of
extradition pursuant to ... section 1306[, subdivision] (b).”
On March 18, 2024, the District Attorney filed a motion to
recover extradition costs, pursuant to section 1306, subdivision
(b), in the amount of $11,181.95 that included a declaration and
exhibits supporting the calculation of actual extradition costs.
On May 24, 2024, the surety filed an opposition to the
motion to recover extradition costs, contending that the trial
court’s April 28, 2023, order exonerating bond was void because it
failed to provide notice of a deadline for the payment of costs, as
required by section 1305.2. The surety also argued that the
motion for extradition costs was not timely because it was filed
3
after the extended appearance period expired on October 11,
2023.
On July 5, 2024, the District Attorney filed a “response” to
the surety’s opposition. He maintained that the April 28, 2023,
order was not void and the court had complied with the
requirements of section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), to vacate the
forfeiture and exonerate bond such that the court maintained
jurisdiction over bail. The District Attorney also argued that he
was entitled to extradition costs pursuant to section 1306,
subdivision (b), which did not specify a deadline for the filing of
the motion for costs. The District Attorney submitted the
declaration of a paralegal assigned to the extradition services
section who testified that, after the defendant was returned to
Los Angeles from Texas, the extradition services section began to
collect the documents needed to prepare the motion to recover
extradition costs. The paralegal explained that she normally
filed such motions within a few months of extradition. But when
she first tried to file the motion in June 2023, the clerk’s office
refused to accept it as it was not on calendar. She then filed the
motion on March 18, 2024.
On August 27, 2024, the surety filed a supplemental
opposition to the District Attorney’s motion for extradition costs.
The surety acknowledged that pursuant to section 1305,
subdivision (c)(1), the trial court was entitled to condition
exoneration upon the payment of costs so long as the terms were
“‘just.’” The surety, however, contended that the court’s April 28,
2023, order was not “just” because it allowed the court to
“entertain a costs motion in perpetuity.”
4
On August 30, 2024, the District Attorney filed a
“supplemental response” to the surety’s supplemental opposition,
maintaining that he was entitled to extradition costs.
On September 24, 2024, the surety filed a motion to vacate
the bond forfeiture and exonerate bond even though, as noted,
the trial court had already exonerated the bond forfeiture. The
surety argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose
extradition costs because on April 28, 2023, it failed to impose a
monetary payment as a condition of relief or mail notice of the
forfeiture, as required by section 1305, subdivision (b). It also
argued that the court had failed to provide notice of the
assessment, which was a condition of the order exonerating bond,
as required by section 1305.2.
On November 1, 2024, the trial court heard both the
District Attorney’s motion for extradition costs and the surety’s
motion to vacate the bond forfeiture. Following argument, the
court granted the District Attorney’s motion to recover
extradition costs in the amount of $11,181.95, and denied the
surety’s motion to vacate the bond forfeiture and exonerate bond
without the payment of extradition costs.
The surety timely filed a notice of appeal.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review and Legal Principles
“‘We review the denial of a motion to vacate a bond
forfeiture and to exonerate the bond for an abuse of discretion.’
[Citation.] However, ... ‘“[w]hen the facts are undisputed and
only legal issues are involved, appellate courts conduct an
independent review.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. The North River Ins.
5
Co. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 209, 215–216 (The North River Ins.
Co.).)
“Bail forfeiture and related proceedings ‘are a matter of
statutory procedure governed by sections 1305 through 1308.’
[Citation.] If a defendant on bail fails to appear in court when
required without sufficient excuse, the court must declare the
bond forfeited. (§ 1305, subd. (a).)” (People v. The North River
Ins. Co. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1, 13.) “‘If the defendant appears in
court or is returned to custody within 180 days, the forfeiture
must be vacated and the bond exonerated. (§ 1305, subd. (c).)’
(People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. (2010) 49 Cal.4th
301, 304–305, fn. omitted ... .) …
“‘Section 1305 next addresses exoneration of the bond in
different factual contexts.’ [Citation.] Relevant here, under
section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), ‘If the defendant appears either
voluntarily or in custody after surrender or arrest in court within
[the appearance period], the court shall, on its own motion at the
time the defendant first appears in court on the case in which the
forfeiture was entered, direct the order of forfeiture to be vacated
and the bond exonerated.’ Further, ‘[i]f the court fails to so act on
its own motion, then the surety’s ... obligations under the bond
shall be immediately vacated and the bond exonerated.’ (§ 1305,
subd. (c)(1).) Finally, ‘[a]n order vacating the forfeiture and
exonerating the bond may be made on terms that are just and do
not exceed the terms imposed in similar situations with respect
to other forms of pretrial release.’ [Citation.]
“‘[S]ection 1306, subdivision (b), which governs
compensation to the government for the costs of extradition,
states, “[i]f a court grants relief from bail forfeiture, it shall
impose a monetary payment as a condition of relief to compensate
6
the people for the costs of returning a defendant to custody
pursuant to [s]ection 1305 ... .”’ [Citation.] The provision further
states, ‘The amount imposed shall reflect the actual costs of
returning the defendant to custody. Failure to act within the
required time to make the payment imposed pursuant to this
subdivision shall not be the basis for a summary judgment
against any or all of the underlying amount of the bail.’ (§ 1306,
subd. (b).)” (The North River Ins. Co., supra, 120 Cal.App.5th at
p. 215.)
B. Analysis
The surety argues that the trial court erred when it
conditioned the exoneration of bail on the payment of extradition
costs. According to the surety, “the conditional exoneration order
issued on April 28, 2023, [was] void and the trial court lost
jurisdiction over the bail bond because (1) no notice of the order
or any payment deadline was provided in violation of … [section]
1305.2 and (2) no ‘monetary amount’ of costs was imposed in
violation of … [section] 1306[, subdivision (b)].” (Capitalization
and boldface omitted.) We disagree.
On April 28, 2023, at the defendant’s first appearance
following extradition, the trial court ordered the exoneration of
bond, pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), conditioned
upon the payment of extradition costs. It did not, however, set
the amount of costs that were due or a date by which a motion to
recover such costs must be filed. Accordingly, section 1305.2,
which provides that “[t]he time limit for payment shall in no
event be less than 30 days after the date of mailing of the notice,”
has no application to the court’s April 28, 2023, order. And
7
section 1306, subdivision (b) does not specify a deadline by which
a motion for costs must be filed.
Further, the surety’s contention—that the bail statutes “do
not contemplate a bifurcated proceeding” in which the
exoneration of bond, pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (c)(1),
is conditioned upon the payment of a monetary amount to be
determined at a later date, pursuant to section 1306, subdivision
(b)—is contrary to case authority. Indeed, the courts of appeal
have expressly approved of the process employed by the trial
court here, that is, to grant the prosecution’s request, pursuant to
section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), when the defendant first
“appeared in court that exoneration of the bond be conditioned on
payment of the expenses incurred for his extradition” (People v.
The North River Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1079, 1091, fn. 8),
“to be determined at a later time” (The North River Ins. Co.,
supra, 120 Cal.App.5th at p. 216).
The surety next contends that the trial court’s order, which
exonerated the bond but left the determination of the actual
extradition costs for another day, was not “just” within the
meaning of section 1305, subdivision (c)(1). Again, we disagree.
“‘There are, of course, numerous authorities affirming the
trial court’s right to impose monetary payments as a condition for
relief. This presumedly, in a proper case, is to compensate the
People for the cost of returning a defendant to custody.’
[Citation.] Thus, if the court assesses a sum of money for that
purpose as a condition of vacating bail forfeiture, the condition is
‘just’ within the meaning of section 1305 and does not constitute
punishment of the surety.” (People v. Sue Sarkis Bail Bonds
(1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 650, 655.) Thus, we cannot conclude that
8
the trial court’s imposition of a cost payment condition on its
exoneration order was not just as a matter of law. 2
Because we reject the surety’s contention that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to condition bond forfeiture on the
payment of extradition fees, we similarly reject the surety’s
contention that the court’s subsequent order requiring payment
of $11,181.95 was void because the court lost jurisdiction over the
exonerated bond by operation of law. (The North River Ins. Co.,
supra, 120 Cal.App.5th at p. 218.)
2 We acknowledge that it would have been preferable for the
trial court, at the April 28, 2023, hearing, to have set a hearing
date to consider the actual cost of extradition or to have imposed
a deadline by which a motion to recover such costs must be filed.
It also would have been preferable for the prosecution to have
noticed an earlier date for its motion to recover extradition costs.
Indeed, under section 1306, subdivision (b), which authorizes a
court to “determine[ ] that in the best interest of justice no costs
should be imposed,” a prosecutor who fails to request the setting
of an earlier hearing date runs the risk that a court will deny its
request for costs as untimely. (§ 1306, subd. (b).)
9
IV. DISPOSITION
The order for award of extradition costs is affirmed.
Plaintiff is awarded costs on appeal.
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
BAKER, J.
10