People v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., A150209
Decision Date | 30 August 2018 |
Docket Number | A150209 |
Citation | 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 534,26 Cal.App.5th 913 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ACCREDITED SURETY & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Law Office of John Rorabaugh, John M. Rorabaugh, Crystal L. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant.
Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel, Scott J. Feudale, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
When bail is forfeited because an out-of-custody defendant fails to appear, the surety is entitled to an automatic exoneration of bail by operation of law if the defendant appears within 185 days from the mailing of a notice of forfeiture. ( Pen. Code, § 1305, subds. (b)(1), (c)(1).)1 Here defendant appeared voluntarily to recall a bench warrant, but—when the case was continued to the afternoon session to secure the bail bondsman's attendance—he failed to appear that afternoon. The trial court did not treat the defendant's morning appearance as sufficient to exonerate the bail and entered summary judgment against the surety. The surety appeals from the order denying its motion to set aside summary judgment, to vacate the forfeiture and to exonerate the bail. We agree with the surety that, upon defendant's appearance, the bail was exonerated by operation of law and reverse.
Defendant John Adams (defendant) was charged with unlawful driving or taking of an automobile ( Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) ). When defendant failed to appear for a hearing, the trial court issued a bench warrant and set bail at $50,000. Defendant was arrested on the warrant. On December 28, 2015, Accredited Surety & Casualty Company (Accredited), through its agent, Chad Conley Bail Bonds, posted bail in the amount of $50,000, and defendant was released from custody. Defendant appeared at two postrelease hearings and was ordered to appear on February 18, 2016, for assignment of counsel. When he failed to appear, the court declared the bond forfeited, and issued a bench warrant. On February 22, 2016, the clerk of the trial court mailed notice of bail forfeiture to Accredited which gave Accredited 185 days—up to and including August 25, 2016—to move to vacate the forfeiture and to exonerate the bond. The matter was on calendar, on August 11, 2016, to recall the bench warrant. Defendant appeared at 10:00 a.m., but the bail bondsman did not. Defendant asked, and the court agreed, to pass the matter to later in the morning. Defendant again appeared, without the bondsman, and the court continued the matter to 2:00 p.m. When the defendant appeared at the morning session, the court did not vacate the order of forfeiture and did not exonerate the bond. Defendant did not appear in the afternoon, and the court ordered "the bench warrant to remain."
Upon the expiration of the exoneration period, the trial court entered summary judgment on the bond and sent Accredited notice of entry. Accredited moved to set aside summary judgment, arguing that the bail was exonerated by operation of law when defendant appeared on August 11, 2016. ( § 1305, subd. (c)(1).) The court heard and denied the motion, and Accredited appealed.
"The forfeiture of bail and related proceedings are a matter of statutory procedure governed by [Penal Code] sections 1305 through 1308." ( People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 709, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 366 P.3d 57 ( Safety National ).) ( People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020, fn. omitted.)
" ‘ ’ [Citation.]
‘ "The standard of review, therefore, compels us to protect the surety, and more importantly the individual citizens who pledge to the surety their property on behalf of persons seeking release from custody, in order to obtain the corporate bond." ’ " ( People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1044, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 881.) ( People v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 146, 152, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 516.)
( Safety National , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 709, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 366 P.3d 57.)
We review an order denying a motion to vacate a bond forfeiture under an abuse of discretion standard; however, where, as here, the facts are uncontested, and the issue concerns a pure question of law, we review the decision de novo. ( People v. Fairmont Specialty Group, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 151, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 ; see People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 588, 592, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 ; accord, People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1395, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 460.)
It is undisputed that—within the 185-day exoneration period, on August 11, 2016— defendant voluntarily appeared; the matter was passed to later in the morning; and, due to the bondsman's absence, continued to the afternoon, at which time defendant failed to appear. Upon the voluntary appearance of defendant, section 1305, subdivision (c)(1) required the trial court—on its own motion—to order the forfeiture to be vacated and to exonerate the bail. (Id ., subd. (c)(1).) Failing that, "the surety's ... obligations under the bond shall be immediately vacated and the bond exonerated." (Id ., subd. (c)(2).) In its motion and at the hearing, Accredited relied on the operation of law to seek to set aside the summary judgment. The court recalled Accredited argued that defendant having voluntarily appeared, the surety was entitled to its remedy. In the absence of the bail bondsman to address the issue of whether to reinstate the bond, the court could either remand the defendant in the morning or—as it did—continue the matter to the afternoon with the defendant out of custody. Accredited observed: The court indulged the defendant, but that accommodation should not be at the surety's expense. The county argued that defendant's presence throughout the morning did not constitute the prerequisite voluntary appearance to require vacation of the forfeiture and exoneration of the bond and analogized to People v. Allied Fidelity Insurance Company (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 242, 147 Cal.Rptr. 245 ( Allied ), which interpreted appearance for pronouncement of judgment or grant of probation. (§ 1287.)
The court agreed that defendant appeared, but expressed uncertainty whether the appearance was sufficient. He ultimately denied the motion because—at the defendant's request—the matter did not conclude while the defendant was present and invited defense counsel to seek appellate review.
The parties agree that the only case interpreting "appearance" as used in section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), is People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1000, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 253 ( Ranger ). In Ranger , supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 1000, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 253, when the defendant for whom the surety posted bail failed to appear, the court declared the bail forfeited and issued an arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. N. River Ins. Co.
...be immediately vacated and the bond exonerated’ "]; see § 1305, subd. (c)(1) ;6 see also People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 913, 915-916, 919, 920, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 [summary judgment entered against surety upon expiration of the bond exoneration period rever......
-
People v. Am. Sur. Co.
...factual dispute, American's contentions receive our independent review. ( People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co . (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 913, 917, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; People v. Bankers Ins. Co . (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 607.)American's first argument is predic......
-
Cnty. of Yolo v. Am. Sur. Co.
...issue concerns a pure question of law, we review the decision de novo." ( People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co . (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 913, 917, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ; People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 915, 919, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 ( Amwest Surety Ins. ).) Moreover " ......
-
People v. N. River Ins. Co.
..."appears . . . in court within 180 days of the date of forfeiture." (§ 1305, subd. (c)(1); People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 913, 918 (Accredited Surety).) Where, as here, the facts are undisputed, we independently review the trial court's determination that t......