Ranger standard in California

2024The surety in that case raised substantially the same argument, also relying on Ranger. ( Ranger, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 .) In distinguishing Ranger, the Lumbermens court explained that the Ranger defendant did not appear on the day his case was called for trial, and that proceedings were delayed by his absence.

2024The surety in that case raised substantially the same argument, also relying on Ranger. ( Ranger, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 .) In distinguishing Ranger, the Lumbermens court explained that the Ranger defendant did not appear on the day his case was called for trial, and that proceedings were delayed by his absence.

2023Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 75 , which used the words “facts occurring after” the appearance period to refer to a bail agent’s act of telling police about a defendant’s location and the defendant’s arrest in California on a bail warrant.

2018Ranger held that county counsel was the proper attorney *75 with regard to the appeal because the underlying criminal prosecution had concluded and "[t]he sole remaining proceedings were the summary judgment-seeking civil collection of the forfeited bail-and Ranger's motion to set aside the summary judgment and exonerate bail." ( Id. at p. 1145, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 .) Ranger distinguished People v. Hadley (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d Supp. 871 , 64 Cal.Rptr. 777 ( Hadley ), which had held the district attorney was the proper attorney to represent the People where bail was forfeited by the defendant's f

2018The defendant’s appearance in the clerk’s office is simply not sufficient.” ( Ranger, supra, at p. 1002 .) Like the Ranger court, the parties here rely on the statute’s “plain language.” Accredited argues that the statute merely requires that the defendant appear “in court.” 5 (Ranger, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002 .) The county refers us to Black’s Law Dictionary which defines “appearance” as “ ‘the overt act by which one against whom suit has been commenced submits himself to the court’s jurisdiction . . . .’ ” (Black’s Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 118, col. 2, quoting 4 Am.Jur.2d (1995)

2018The defendant’s appearance in the clerk’s office is simply not sufficient.” ( Ranger, supra, at p. 1002 .) Like the Ranger court, the parties here rely on the statute’s “plain language.” Accredited argues that the statute merely requires that the defendant appear “in court.” 5 (Ranger, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002 .) The county refers us to Black’s Law Dictionary which defines “appearance” as “ ‘the overt act by which one against whom suit has been commenced submits himself to the court’s jurisdiction . . . .’ ” (Black’s Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 118, col. 2, quoting 4 Am.Jur.2d (1995)

2006(Alistar, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 129 .) The court used the Ranger standard, stating that establishing good cause requires an explanation of what efforts the surety made to locate the defendant and why those efforts were unsuccessful.

2006(Alistar, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 129 .) The court used the Ranger standard, stating that establishing good cause requires an explanation of what efforts the surety made to locate the defendant and why those efforts were unsuccessful.

2006As the Ranger court noted, section 1305.4 does not “giv[e] a surety carte blanche to sit on its hands for six months and then come running into court at the last minute with a bare-bones declaration that leaves huge gaps in the facts, and expect a trial court to simply roll over and give an extension.” (Ranger, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 682 .) In order to show good cause for its extension, the surety must demonstrate that it diligently attempted to locate and capture the defendant during the initial 180 days.

2006As the Ranger court noted, section 1305.4 does not “giv[e] a surety carte blanche to sit on its hands for six months and then come running into court at the last minute with a bare-bones declaration that leaves huge gaps in the facts, and expect a trial court to simply roll over and give an extension.” (Ranger, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 682 .) In order to show good cause for its extension, the surety must demonstrate that it diligently attempted to locate and capture the defendant during the initial 180 days.