People v. Tingcungco
237 Cal. App. 4th 249
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Allegheny Casualty posted $50,000 bail for Ericson Tingcungco; bail was forfeited after Tingcungco failed to appear and the 180-day appearance/exoneration period was set to expire (extended to Oct. 4, 2013).
- On Oct. 1, 2013, Allegheny informed the Los Angeles DA that Tingcungco had been located in Mexico and asked the DA to decide whether to seek extradition.
- Allegheny moved to toll the appearance/exoneration period while the DA decided whether to pursue extradition and, if extradition were chosen, to toll further during extradition or vacate forfeiture if the DA declined.
- The DA opposed, arguing Penal Code §1305(g) requires a timely decision and does not permit tolling merely to allow the DA to decide; the trial court denied Allegheny’s motion.
- Allegheny appealed, arguing the statute required tolling while prosecutors decide whether to extradite and that subdivision (h) (tolling by agreement) should be read to cover pre-decision delays.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the statutory text and legislative history foreclose tolling while the prosecutor decides whether to extradite; tolling under subdivision (h) requires prosecutorial agreement after a decision to extradite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §1305(g) requires tolling of the 180‑day exoneration period while the prosecutor decides whether to seek extradition of a fugitive located abroad | DA: §1305(g) imposes a hard deadline; no tolling while DA decides; bond forfeiture stands if DA has not elected within period | Allegheny: Tolling is required while DA decides; surety complied with §1305(g) and should not be penalized for prosecutor-controlled delay | Court: No tolling for prosecutorial decision time; statutory scheme and Seneca control; exoneration depends on return or DA’s express election to decline extradition within period |
| Whether subdivision (h) authorizes tolling before the prosecutor decides to extradite | DA: (implicit) subdivision (h) allows tolling only after an agreement, presuming a decision to extradite | Allegheny: Subdivision (h) should be read to permit tolling to cover the DA’s decisionmaking time | Court: Legislature rejected an earlier amendment that would have tolled for DA decision time and adopted (h) limiting tolling to situations where prosecutor agrees; (h) does not authorize pre-decision tolling |
| Whether contractual impossibility or case law (Myers/American Surety) excuses nonproduction because DA delayed extradition decision | Allegheny: Doctrine of impossibility should excuse nonperformance; analogous cases excuse sureties when appearance is impossible | DA: Those authorities are inapposite to subdivisions (g)/(h) and predate or differ materially | Court: Myers and American Surety are not applicable; statutory scheme controls and does not support impossibility here |
| Whether Lexington supports tolling to allow an extradition decision | Allegheny: Lexington suggests tolling is appropriate to give prosecutors time to decide | DA: Lexington concerned a defendant in custody (subdivision (e)/(f)), not (g) situations | Court: Lexington is distinguishable; its tolling arose from a statutory disability (custody), not an open extradition decision |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Seneca Ins. Co., 189 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2010) (holds bond exoneration depends on return or prosecutor’s election to forego extradition; no tolling for uninitiated extradition)
- People v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp., 181 Cal.App.4th 1485 (2010) (tolling required where defendant is in custody in another jurisdiction under statutory disability provisions)
- People v. Meyers, 215 Cal. 115 (1932) (historical rule excusing performance where compliance would violate another court order; inapplicable here)
- People v. American Surety Ins. Co., 77 Cal.App.4th 1063 (2000) (bond exoneration where defendant permanently unable to appear due to deportation; not governing §1305(g)/(h) issues)
- Pasadena Metro Blue Line Constr. Auth. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 140 Cal.App.4th 658 (2006) (statutory interpretation principles cited for reviewing undisputed facts)