People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/3

── People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, G065222 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22WF0665) v. OPINION FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Justin Glenn-Leistikow, Judge. Affirmed. John Mark Rorabaugh, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, and Golnaz Zandieh, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *  Defendant Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Financial Casualty) issued a $100,0000 bail bond to secure Danny Ortizburgos release from jail after he violated the terms of his probation. Ortizburgos then missed a court appearance. The trial court ordered the bail bond to be forfeited, and it later entered summary judgment against Financial Casualty and in favor of plaintiff the People of the State of California (the County). On appeal, Financial Casualty contends the court erred by entering summary judgment against it because the bail bond had been exonerated by operation of law. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. CHARGES AND SENTENCING In March 2022, the Orange County District Attorney (the prosecution) filed three felony charges against Ortizburgos for assault with a firearm (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(2); count one)1, assault with a machinegun (§ 245, subd. (a)(3); count two), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count three.) The trial court later granted the prosecution’s motion to reduce counts one and three to misdemeanors, and Ortizburgos pleaded guilty to all three counts. Ortizburgos was sentenced in May 2022. The trial court stayed the sentence on count three under section 654. As to counts one and two, the court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Ortizburgos on three years’ probation with a condition that he serve 180 days in jail. Ortizburgos agreed to various probation terms, including that he would (1) not use any 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 unauthorized drugs, (2) not violate any law, and (3) attend and complete a domestic violence batterers’ treatment program, among other conditions. II. BAIL BOND ISSUED A few months later, on September 2, 2022, a probation officer filed a Petition for Arraignment on Probation Violation (the first petition), which claimed that Ortizburgos had violated his probation terms. Specifically, the day before the first petition’s filing, Ortizburgos had been arrested for allegedly (1) violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), (2) unlawfully possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (b)), and (3) falsely representing his identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a).) A probation violation arraignment was hel