People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066946 · 2016-03-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2014-00019687-CL-EN-CTL
Trial judge: Lisa Schall
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:55Z · confidence high

The trial court ordered the forfeiture of a bail bond after the defendant failed to appear at a felony readiness hearing and subsequently denied the surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the defendant's presence was lawfully required under Penal Code section 1305 as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in People v. Safety National Casualty Corp.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of surety's motion to vacate bail forfeiture and exonerate the bond “we hold the court properly ordered the bond forfeited and did not abuse its discretion in denying Surety's subsequent motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703 — A defendant's absence at a scheduled pretrial hearing constitutes a basis for bail forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305 if the defendant received notice, did not waive presence, and failed to appear without sufficient excuse.
relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301 — A pretrial readiness conference is an occasion when the defendant's presence is lawfully required for purposes of bail forfeiture.
relied: People v. Legion Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1192 — The abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court's resolution of a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture.
relied: County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58 — Penal Code sections dealing with forfeiture of bail bonds must be strictly construed in favor of the surety.
relied: County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538 — In reviewing a bail forfeiture motion, factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, legal conclusions de novo, and application of law to facts only if arbitrary and capricious.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the controlling California Supreme Court precedent, People v. Safety National Casualty Corp., to the specific facts of the defendant's nonappearance at a noticed pretrial hearing. The court properly identifies the applicable standard of review and relies on established authorities regarding the strict construction of bail forfeiture statutes in favor of the surety.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence medium

The trial court forfeited a bail bond when the defendant failed to appear at a felony readiness hearing and denied the surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding under People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. that the defendant's presence was lawfully required at the noticed pretrial hearing and the court did not abuse its discretion.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order forfeiting the bail bond based on defendant's nonappearance at the May 15, 2012 felony readiness hearing “Because we conclude the defendant was required to appear at the felony readiness hearing within the meaning of the bail forfeiture statutes, we hold the court properly ordered the bond forfeited”	mixed	correct	agree with court Section 1305(a)(4) permits forfeiture when a defendant's presence is 'lawfully required' and the Supreme Court in Safety National held that a defendant who has notice of a scheduled pretrial hearing, has not executed a written waiver of presence under section 977, and fails to appear without sufficient excuse is subject to bail forfeiture. The facts here (written notice served, no waiver, no excuse) match Safety National closely.
Denial of Surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond “Accordingly, under Safety National, her nonappearance provided an adequate basis for the court's order forfeiting the bond.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The appellate court applied the abuse-of-discretion framework (facts for substantial evidence, law de novo, application for arbitrariness) and resolved the dispositive legal question by binding Supreme Court authority. The trial court's reliance on Rule 4.112 was not squarely addressed by the appellate court, but the result is independently supported by Safety National, and Surety declined supplemental briefing to distinguish it.

Authorities

relied: People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703 — A defendant's absence from a scheduled pretrial hearing of which the defendant had notice, without a written waiver of presence and without sufficient excuse, is a basis to forfeit bail under section 1305 because presence is lawfully required.
relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301 — A defendant's presence is lawfully required at mandatory hearings without a specific order and at other hearings when there is a specific court order commanding appearance at a date and time certain; a pretrial readiness conference is such an occasion.
relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 — Bail forfeiture is entirely statutory and sections 1305 through 1309 are strictly construed in favor of the surety.
relied: People v. Legion Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1192 — A trial court's ruling on a motion to set aside bail forfeiture is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58 — The law disfavors forfeitures and bail statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the surety.
relied: County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538 — On review of a bail forfeiture ruling, findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, conclusions of law de novo, and application of law to facts for arbitrariness.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly identifies the controlling and then-recent Supreme Court decision in Safety National, whose facts (notice of pretrial hearing, no written waiver, no excuse) closely parallel this case, and the surety declined to distinguish it. It does not analyze the trial court's Rule 4.112 timing rationale or the surety's Ranger-based 'specific order' argument in depth, but Safety National resolves the dispositive question regardless.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/14/16 P. v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D066946

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00019687-CL-EN-CTL) FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa Schall, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of John Rorabaugh and John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Thomas Deák, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Surety) posted a bail bond for a defendant charged with a crime and, when the defendant did not appear at a hearing denominated as a felony readiness hearing, the court ordered the bond forfeited. The court denied Surety's subsequent motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, and Surety appeals from the denial of its motion. The only issue is whether the hearing at which the defendant did not appear was one at which she was required to appear. Because we conclude the defendant was required to appear at the felony readiness hearing within the meaning of the bail forfeiture statutes, we hold the court properly ordered the bond forfeited and did not abuse its discretion in denying Surety's subsequent motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Nonappearance Defendant Ciarra Mendoza was charged with transportation of controlled substances and possession for sale of controlled substances, together with various enhancement and prior offense allegations. Surety posted a bond for the release of Mendoza from custody. On April 18, 2012, Mendoza appeared and asked for a continuance of the trial date and agreed to "waive time." The court then set a readiness hearing for May 15, 2012, and a trial date for June 12, 2012. The written order setting the readiness hearing for May 15, 2012, was served on Mendoza.

On May 15, 2012, Mendoza did not appear at the readiness hearing set for 8:30 a.m., and the court trailed the matter until the afternoon. Defense counsel for Mendoza returned for the continued readiness hearing but she again did not appear, and defense counsel informed the court he had not had "any contact" with Mendoza "for the last couple of days." The court, after noting Mendoza "should be here" and was not, ordered 2 the bond forfeited and issued a bench warrant for her arrest. Defense counsel made no objection.

B. The Motion The clerk mailed a notice of forfeiture and the court subsequently entered summary judgment on the forfeited bond. Surety timely moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. Surety's written motion argued the court did not have jurisdiction to forfeit the bond because Mendoza was not ordered to appear at the May 15, 2012, felony readiness hearing, and the felony readiness hearing was not a hearing at which her appearance was required by Penal Code1 section 1305 or any other statute, and therefore there was no legal requirement for her to appear. Surety argued the court erred when it ordered the bond forfeited based on Mendoza's nonappearance.

The People opposed the motion, asserting the court had expressly notified Mendoza of the May 15, 2012, readiness hearing, and California Rules of Court rule 4.112 (Rule 4.112) mandated that Mendoza appear at the readiness hearing. (Rule 4.112(a)(3).) The People argued that because Mendoza was lawfully required to appear at the May 15, 2012, readiness hearing by this provision, and "[a] pretrial readiness conference is an occasion when the defendant's presence is lawfully required" (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1304 (Ranger)) within the meaning of the bail forfeiture statutes, her failure to appear at the felony readiness hearing permitted forfeiture of the bond.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 At oral argument, Surety argued Rule 4.112 had no application because it mandated a readiness hearing between one and 14 days before the scheduled trial date, and Mendoza's readiness hearing was more than 14 days before trial. The court rejected Surety's argument because neither the defense nor the People objected to holding the Rule 4.112 hearing more than 14 days before trial. The court denied Surety's motion and Surety timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Principles "The forfeiture or exoneration of bail is entirely a statutory procedure, and forfeiture proceedings are governed entirely by the special statutes applicable thereto.

[Citation.] Sections 1305 through 1309 govern bail forfeiture. [Citation.] Because the law abhors forfeitures, these statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the surety."

(People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1549, 1552.)

Section 1305, subdivision (a), requires that bail be forfeited if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant does not appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or "[a]ny other occasion . . . if the defendant's presence in court is lawfully required." A defendant's presence is "lawfully required" at certain so-called mandatory hearings (even without a specific court order) and at other so-called nonmandatory hearings when there is " 'a specific court order commanding [her] appearance at a date and time certain.' " (Ranger, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.)

4 When a court orders a bond forfeited, the surety may move to set aside the forfeiture, and the abuse of discretion standard applies to the trial court's resolution of a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture (People v. Legion Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1195) subject to constraints imposed by the bail statutory scheme. " 'The law traditionally disfavors forfeitures and this disfavor extends to forfeiture of bail.

[Citations.] Thus, Penal Code sections . . . dealing with forfeiture of bail bonds must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid the harsh results of a forfeiture.' [¶] 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." (County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58, 62.) Because the determination on a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture is discretionary and will not be disturbed on appeal unless abuse appears in the record, deference requires that the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious. (County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538, 542-543.)

B. Analysis Surety contends the May 15, 2012, hearing was not one of the so-called mandatory hearings at which a defendant must appear even without a specific court order. From that predicate, Surety asserts Mendoza's presence in court at that hearing could only have lawfully been required within the meaning of the bail forfeiture statutes if there was " 'a specific court order commanding [her] appearance at a date and time certain' " (Ranger, 5 supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304), and because the reporter's transcript from the April 18, 2012, hearing does not reflect a specific order for Mendoza to appear at the May 15, 2012, hearing, Surety argues her nonappearance at that hearing could not support the bail forfeiture order.

Our Supreme Court recently published its decision in People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, and we are satisfied it controls here. In Safety National, the defendant (Bent) was released on bond and appeared at several hearings.

At his arraignment hearing, the trial court entered Bent's plea of not guilty, and also set a pretrial conference date. Bent appeared at the pretrial conference, where the parties " 'agreed to put the case over' " to a new date, and the trial court stated " 'bail will stand.' "

When Bent did not appear at the agreed upon date, the court ordered bail forfeited. (Id. at p. 708.) The Safety National court, after noting Bent had received notice of the pretrial hearing, did not execute a written waiver of his right to be present, and failed to appear without sufficient excuse, concluded "Bent's absence at this scheduled pretrial hearing constituted a basis on which to forfeit bail under section 1305." (Id. at p. 717.)

The People argue, and we agree, that case is controlled by Safety National, and Surety has declined the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing articulating any possible distinction that might obviate the application of Safety National to the present action. Here, as in Safety National, Mendoza received notice of the pretrial hearing, did not execute a written waiver of her right to be present, and failed to appear without sufficient excuse. Accordingly, under Safety National, her nonappearance provided an adequate basis for the court's order forfeiting the bond.

6 DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. S218712 · 2016-02-01
County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group B202469 · 2009-04-28
People v. Legion Insurance E031148 · 2002-10-16
People v. Ranger Ins. Co. H017360 · 1998-10-05
People v. Ranger Insurance H009089 · 1992-05-27
County of Los Angeles v. Surety Insurance B001943 · 1984-11-01