People v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. S218712.,S218712. |
| Citation | 366 P.3d 57,62 Cal.4th 703,199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. |
62 Cal.4th 703
366 P.3d 57
199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S218712.
Supreme Court of California
Feb. 1, 2016.
John Mark Rorabaugh, Fresno, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Krattli and Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel, Brian T. Chu and Joanne Nielsen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHIN, J.
When a defendant facing criminal charges is released on bail and fails to appear as ordered or as otherwise required and does not have a sufficient excuse, a trial court must declare the bail bond forfeited. (See Pen.Code,1§ 1305, subd. (a) (section 1305(a).)) A defendant's required appearances include arraignment, trial, judgment, and, as relevant here, "[a]ny other occasion" where the "defendant's presence in court is lawfully required." (Ibid. ) Though not expressly governing bail forfeitures, section 977, subdivision (b)(1) (section 977(b)(1) ) provides that a felony defendant must be present at five specified proceedings and at " all other proceedings" unless he or she has properly executed a written waiver. (See People v. Gutierrez (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1196, 1203, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 63 P.3d 1000.)
The question here involves the interplay, if any, between section 1305(a) and section 977(b)(1) : If a defendant fails to execute a written waiver of
personal presence, does his or her nonappearance at a scheduled pretrial proceeding constitute a basis to forfeit bail under section 1305 (a) ? The answer is yes. As we explain below, section 977(b)(1)'s requirement of personal presence at "all other proceedings" gives rise to a " lawfully required" appearance under section 1305(a). Therefore, unless a defendant has properly executed a written waiver of personal presence (§ 977(b) ), or
has a "sufficient excuse" for his or her absence at a scheduled proceeding (§ 1305 ), the trial court must declare any bail forfeited.
We reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2010, Elshaddai Machabeus Bent was charged with felony drunk driving. His bail was set at $25,000, and the bail bond was executed by Safety National Casualty Co. (Safety National), through its agent, High Five Bail Bonds. Between November 2010 and April 5, 2011, Bent and his attorney appeared at several hearings before different judges or court commissioners. At a March 1, 2011 arraignment hearing, the trial court entered Bent's plea of not guilty and then asked Bent's attorney his preference for a pretrial date. Defense counsel suggested April 5, and the trial court set the pretrial conference for that date.
On April 5, 2011, Bent appeared before Judge Martin L. Herscovitz for the first time. The trial court stated on the record: "We had a discussion about settling the case and also scheduling, and we agreed to put
the case over to May 2nd, with the understanding that any trial would be within 45 days of that day." Bent later waived his right to a speedy trial, and the trial court stated that "bail will stand." Defense counsel, however, indicated that April 29 was a better date than May 2, and the trial court continued the hearing until then.
On April 29, 2011, Bent did not appear at the hearing. His attorney informed the court that she could not contact Bent either that morning or the previous evening. The trial court ordered that "with no good cause for his non-appearance, bail is forfeited," and issued a bench warrant in the amount of $50,000. Based on its representation of good cause, Safety National subsequently sought a 180–day extension (§ 1305.4) to extend the original 180 days in which to seek vacation of the forfeiture order if Bent was returned to custody (§ 1305, subd. (c)(1) ). The trial court granted the motion in November 2011, extending Safety National's time to vacate the forfeiture until May 2, 2012.
On January 13, 2012, Safety National moved to vacate the bail forfeiture on grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. It maintained that defendant Bent was not ordered to appear at the April 29, 2011 hearing, nor was his presence at that hearing required by law. Denying the motion, the trial court reasoned, among other things, that Safety National should have raised the jurisdictional issue at the time the court extended the date to vacate the forfeiture, and that the court's statement that "bail will stand" was an order for defendant to appear.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that section 977 had "no bearing on a defendant's obligation to appear at certain trial court proceedings in order to maintain his status on bail." Because the Court of Appeal concluded that section 977 did not provide the basis for defendant Bent's mandatory appearance, it discussed whether defendant was compelled to appear by court order or otherwise. The Court of Appeal rejected the People's assertion that the trial court's statement that "bail will stand" constituted an order that defendant appear at the next hearing.
We granted review limited to the statutory interpretations of section 977 and 1305 in this context.
DISCUSSION
The forfeiture of bail and related proceedings are a matter of statutory procedure
governed by sections 1305 through 1308. (See County of Sacramento v. Insurance Co. of the West (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 561, 564–565, 188 Cal.Rptr. 736.) "The object of bail and its forfeiture is to insure the attendance of the accused and his obedience to the orders and judgment of the court." (People v. Wilcox (1960) 53 Cal.2d 651, 656–657, 2 Cal.Rptr. 754, 349 P.2d 522.) "While bail bond proceedings occur in connection with criminal prosecutions, they are independent from and collateral to the prosecutions and are civil in nature." (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020.) In that regard, the bail bond itself is a " ‘contract between the surety and the government whereby the surety acts as a guarantor of the defendant's appearance in court under the risk of forfeiture of the bond.’ " (Ibid. ) When a defendant who posts bail fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, the forfeiture of bail implicates not just the defendant's required presence, but constitutes a "breach of this contract" between the surety and the government. (Id. at pp. 657–658, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020.) Ultimately, if the defendant's nonappearance is without sufficient excuse, it is the surety who "must suffer the consequences." (People v. Allen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 575, 580, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 669.)
Section 1305(a) provides in pertinent part: "(a) A court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property
deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear for any of the following: [¶] (1) Arraignment. [¶] (2) Trial. [¶] (3) Judgment. [¶] (4) Any other occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant's presence in court is lawfully required. [¶] (5) To surrender himself or herself in execution of the judgment after appeal." (Italics added.) These two jurisdictional prerequisites
—specifically, the defendant's failure to appear at an enumerated proceeding or on another occasion as " lawfully required," and the lack of a sufficient excuse for the defendant's nonappearance—must be met before the trial court may declare a forfeiture. (people v. united bonding ins. co. (1971) 5 cal.3d 898, 905, 98 cal.rptr. 57, 489 P.2d 1385.) 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. (Id. at p. 907, 98 Cal.Rptr. 57, 489 P.2d 1385 ["trial court was under a compulsion to ‘thereupon’ declare a forfeiture"]; see People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 582, 586, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 844 ["trial courts exercise a limited discretion in ordering bail forfeitures"].) However, the trial court may continue a case for a reasonable period without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant, if it "has reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist" for the defendant's failure to appear. (§ 1305.1; see People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 199.)
For purposes of section 1305(a), a defendant's presence may be deemed "lawfully required" when a specific court order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp.
...62 Cal.4th 703366 P.3d 57199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.No. S218712.Supreme Court of CaliforniaFeb. 1, 2016.199 Cal.Rptr.3d 273John Mark Rorabaugh, Fresno, for Defendant and Appellant.John F. Krattli an......