Full Opinion

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