People v. Bankers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | F078298 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Douglas V. Mewhinney, Judge. ).
Law Office of John Rorabaugh, John Mark Rorabaugh and Crystal L. Rorabaugh, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- All Pro Bail Bonds, as an agent of Bankers Insurance Company (collectively, Surety) appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment on its forfeited bail bond. Surety contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture of bail on June 19, 2017, because the court failed to declare a forfeiture when defendant Robert Shane Piatt did not attend a June 6, 2017 pretrial hearing.
The bail statute requires trial courts to declare bail forfeited when, "without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear" on an occasion where "the defendant's presence in court is lawfully required." (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a)(1)(D).)1 "If the court fails to declare a forfeiture at the time of the defendant's unexcused absence, it is without jurisdiction to do so later." (People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 710 (Safety National).)
Here, the parties dispute whether Piatt was required to be present at a June 6, 2017 pretrial hearing. If his presence was required, Surety was entitled to notice of Piatt's absence, and the failure to provide that notice would exonerate the bond. Whether the trial court required Piatt's presence at the hearing depends on how the court's oral scheduling order is interpreted. First, we conclude the words used by the court are ambiguous—that is, reasonably susceptible to two interpretations. Second, we conclude the trial court properly resolved the ambiguity by construing its words in context and concluding Piatt was required to be present at the June 6, 2017 pretrial hearing only if a settlement had been reached.
Consequently, we conclude "the defendant's presence in court" for the June 6, 2017 hearing was not "required" for purposes of section 1305, subdivision (a), and the court was not obligated to declare the bail bond forfeited at that hearing when the defendant was not present. Accordingly, the court retained jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture based on Piatt's subsequent failure to make a required appearance.
As a second ground for vacating the forfeiture of the bail bond, Surety contends the bond was void because bail was set in violation of Piatt's constitutional rights. (See In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, review granted May 23, 2018, S247278 (Humphrey).) We assume for purposes of this appeal that Piatt's constitutional rights were violated and conclude such a violation does not provide a ground for voiding the bail bond. Thus, we join the Third Appellate District's resolution of this legal question rather than creating a split among the Courts of Appeal. (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 891, 897 (Accredited '19).)
We therefore affirm the summary judgment granted on the bail bond.
On August 25, 2016, Surety posted a bail bond (No. 525004031-7) in the amount of $250,000 for the release of Piatt from custody. On September 19, 2016, a felony complaint was filed against Piatt. The four counts in the complaint alleged Piatt engaged in conduct with a minor from August 2006 through August 2010 that violated the Penal Code. (See §§ 288, subd. (a), 288.5, subd. (a), 288.7, subd. (b), 288a, subd. (c)(1).)
On September 26, 2016, Piatt was present in court after being released on bail. The prosecutor requested bail be increased to $450,000. The trial court denied the request without prejudice, appointed a public defender, and continued the matter so the defense attorney could be present. The court set a hearing for September 30, 2016, and ordered Piatt to appear.
On September 30, 2016, Piatt was present in court. The trial court began the hearing by identifying the prosecutor and identifying the attorney who was specially appearing for Piatt. Next, the court stated that the "purpose of your hearing today is for a first pretrial" and "for bail review." It also stated, "I think you wanted to hire a private attorney."
The prosecutor renewed the request to increase bail, stating: The prosecutor and the court discussed her calculations of bail, which added $250,000 for count 1 (a life charge) and $100,000 each for counts 2 and 3. The court stated that "ordinarily if it's a life case, then usually the life bail is the one that's set, which is 250
The attorney specially appearing for Piatt asserted the bail for the life charge "itself is sufficient." He argued (1) the offenses alleged were from 2007 to 2010, (2) Piatt had ties to the community, (3) he had lived a lawful life except for a minor public intoxication incident in 1985, (4) "the bond actually has an assurance of his father's, who's here, home," and (5) "his obligations to make sure that he also protects his father's home is paramount." The attorney argued the risk of flight was defined by the exposure to a life term, the additional charges did not increase the exposure and, thus, did not increase the flight risk.
The prosecutor responded by arguing Piatt posed a risk to society in general and to the victim in particular, describing past threats allegedly made to the victim—a member of his family. Defense counsel noted one of Piatt's daughters was in court to support him, the court could impose a stay away order to protect the victim, and the fact Piatt was under scrutiny by the prosecutor and police reduced the risk to society and the victim. Defense counsel concluded by stating, "I'd ask that the bond stay as set."
The trial court stated that, given the alleged incidents were more than five years old, it was "satisfied that the bail currently posted ... is sufficient with the stay-away orders." The court stated its ruling was without prejudice to the presentation of additional information, such as threats or intimidation, and bail could be revisited and modified accordingly. After denying the request to increase bail, the court scheduledanother pretrial hearing for a week later, which was intended to give Piatt enough time to meet with the defense attorney he had retained.
On October 7, 2016, Piatt was present in court with retained counsel. The prosecutor again requested a bail increase and the trial court denied the request. Piatt waived time and executed a waiver of personal presence in open court pursuant to section 977.
On March 9, 2017, counsel appeared at another pretrial hearing. Piatt's presence was not required because he had filed a waiver under section 977. The court set a pretrial hearing for April 11, 2017, and a preliminary examination for June 19, 2017.
On April 11, 2017, defense counsel and a prosecutor were present for the hearing. Piatt was not present. During the hearing, the trial court made an order for further hearings, the meaning of which is disputed by the parties. Consequently, we set forth the entire exchange between the court and counsel at the April 11, 2017 hearing:
The minute order for the April 11, 2017 hearing listed the next appearance date in Department 4 as June 6, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. and another appearance date as June 19, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. After each listing, the clerk marked the box for "Def. ordered to appear / excused" and drew a line through "excused."
On June 6, 2017, defense counsel and a prosecutor appeared for the pretrial hearing. Piatt was not present. During the hearing, counsel and the trial court discussed a new case filed against Piatt. The clerk stated an arrest warrant had been issued in the new case. The court stated: Neither the court nor the prosecutor stated or suggested that Piatt's absence from the hearing violated the court's scheduling order of April 11, 2017.
On June 19, 2017, Piatt was not present at the hearing. The trial court ordered the forfeiture of bail in open court and issued a bench warrant. On June 20, 2017, the clerk of court mailed Surety a notice of forfeiture stating Piatt had...
To continue reading
Request your trial