People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CD240387
- Trial judge
- David M. Szumowski
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court ordered the bail bond forfeited 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, holding that under People v. Safety National Casualty Corp., the defendant's notice of the hearing and failure to appear without excuse constituted a lawful basis for forfeiture.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order forfeiting the bail bond due to defendant's nonappearance at the 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, the court properly ordered the bond forfeited” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the de novo standard of review to the legal question of whether the defendant's presence was lawfully required. It relied on the recent Supreme Court decision in People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, which established that a defendant's failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial hearing, where notice was given and no waiver was executed, provides a basis for forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305. The facts here—notice via minute order and no waiver—align with the controlling precedent, making the trial court's order legally sound. |
Denial of surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond“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 The appellate court applied the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate. It found no abuse because the underlying forfeiture was legally justified under Safety National. Since the trial court's factual findings (that the defendant was ordered to appear and failed to do so) were supported by the record, and the legal conclusion was correct, the discretionary denial of the motion to vacate was proper. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703 — A defendant's failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial hearing, where notice was given and no written waiver of the right to be present was executed, constitutes a basis for bail forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305.
- relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 — Bail forfeiture proceedings are governed entirely by special statutes (Penal Code sections 1305-1309) and must be strictly construed in favor of the surety because the law abhors forfeitures.
- relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301 — A defendant's presence is lawfully required at mandatory hearings or at nonmandatory hearings when there is a specific court order commanding appearance at a date and time certain.
- 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 to avoid harsh results, and the standard of review compels protection of the surety.
- relied: County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538 — In reviewing a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture, factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, legal conclusions de novo, and the application of law to facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Safety National) and applies it to the specific facts of the case (notice given, no waiver, failure to appear). It properly addresses the surety's argument regarding the lack of a specific oral order by relying on the written minute order and the broader statutory interpretation from Safety National.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court ordered a bail bond forfeited when the defendant failed to appear at a scheduled felony readiness hearing and then denied the surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, rejecting the surety's argument that the defendant's presence was not lawfully required at that hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the Supreme Court's then-recent decision in People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. controls and that a felony defendant who has notice of a pretrial hearing, has not executed a written waiver of presence, and fails to appear without sufficient excuse supplies a basis for forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order forfeiting the bail bond upon the defendant's nonappearance at the May 31, 2012 felony readiness hearing, on the ground his presence was lawfully required under Penal Code section 1305“Here, as in Safety National, Karie had notice of the May 31, 2012, hearing, did not execute a written waiver of his right to be present, and failed to appear without sufficient excuse.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Whether a defendant's presence is 'lawfully required' under section 1305 is a question of law. Safety National (62 Cal.4th 703) held that section 977(b)(1) makes a felony defendant's presence mandatory at pretrial proceedings absent a written waiver, so nonappearance at a noticed pretrial hearing supports forfeiture regardless of whether a specific oral order to appear was made. A felony readiness hearing is such a proceeding, the defendant was served with a minute order setting it, and no waiver was executed. The court's conclusion follows directly from binding Supreme Court authority, and the surety offered no distinction when invited to do so. |
Denial of the surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond“Accordingly, under Safety National, Karie's nonappearance provided an adequate basis for the court's order forfeiting the bond.” | mixed | correct | agree with court The court articulated the correct framework: abuse of discretion overall, with legal conclusions reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, tempered by strict construction in favor of the surety. Because the sole ground for the motion was the legal contention that appearance was not required, and that contention fails under Safety National, there was no basis on which the trial court could have granted the motion. The opinion does not separately analyze section 977(b)(1) or the surety's reporter's-transcript argument, but Safety National renders those points immaterial. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703 — A felony defendant's absence from a scheduled pretrial hearing of which he had notice, without a written waiver of presence and without sufficient excuse, is a basis to forfeit bail under Penal Code section 1305 because section 977(b)(1) lawfully requires his presence.
- relied: People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1549 — Bail forfeiture is entirely statutory, governed by Penal Code sections 1305 through 1309, and those statutes are strictly construed in favor of the surety.
- 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 nonmandatory hearings only where there is a specific court order commanding appearance at a date and time certain.
- relied: People v. Legion Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1192 — A trial court's ruling on a motion to set aside a bail forfeiture is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- relied: County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58 — Bail forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the surety, and the standard of review protects the surety and those who pledge property to it.
- 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 — The opinion correctly identifies the controlling Supreme Court decision, Safety National, which squarely holds that a felony defendant's noticed but unexcused absence from a pretrial hearing without a written waiver supports forfeiture, and it applies that holding to materially identical facts after giving the surety an opportunity to distinguish it. It is brief and does not independently discuss section 977(b)(1) or resolve the minute-order-versus-transcript dispute, but those points are rendered unnecessary by the controlling authority, so the omission is not a substantive gap.
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, D064853
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CD240387)
FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.
Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed.
John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Walter J. De Lorrell III, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Surety) posted a bail bond for a defendant and, when the defendant did not appear at 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 issue is whether the defendant was required to appear at the 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, 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
The Nonappearance Surety posted a bond for the release of defendant Guled Karie from custody, and Karie was ordered to appear for arraignment on April 19, 2012. At the April 19, 2012, arraignment, Karie pleaded not guilty. The court set two hearings: a felony readiness hearing for May 31, 2012, at 8:15 a.m. in Department 29, and a preliminary examination for June 21, 2012, at 8:15 a.m. in Department 11. The written April 19, 2012, minute order stated (under the heading "Hearings") that "DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO APPEAR for" followed by a number of boxes, two of which were checked: the "Readiness/DWT" was checked followed by the notation "5.31.12 at 815 in Dept. 29,"
and the "Prelim Exam" was checked followed by the notation "6.21.12 at 815 in Dept.
11." The April 19, 2012, minute order was served on Karie and his attorney, Mr.
Burgess.
Mr. Burgess appeared at the May 31, 2012, felony readiness hearing on behalf of Karie but reported Karie was "not present." The court, noting the time was then 10:05 2 a.m., stated Karie "was ordered to be here at 8:15" and issued a bench warrant, ordered the bail forfeited, and vacated the previously set dates. Burgess made no objection.
The Motion Surety moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. Surety argued Karie was not ordered to appear at the May 31, 2012, felony readiness hearing, and the felony readiness hearing was not a hearing at which his appearance was required by Penal Code1 section 1305 or any other statute, and therefore there was no legal requirement for him to appear. Surety argued the court erred when it ordered the bond forfeited based on Karie's nonappearance. The People opposed the motion, asserting (1) the court had expressly ordered Karie to appear at the May 31, 2012, felony readiness hearing, and (2)
section 977, subdivision (b)(1), mandated Karie's appearance at the May 31, 2012, felony readiness hearing. The court denied Surety's motion, and Surety appealed.
ANALYSIS
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.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3 Section 1305, subdivision (a), requires 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 his appearance at a date and time certain.' " (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1304.)
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 4 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.)
Analysis Surety contends, because the May 31, 2012, hearing was not one of the so-called mandatory hearings at which a defendant must appear without a specific court order, Karie's presence in court at the May 31, 2012, hearing could only have lawfully been required within the meaning of the bail forfeiture statutes if there was " 'a specific court order commanding his appearance at a date and time certain.' " (People v. Ranger Ins.
Co., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.) Surety asserts, because the reporter's transcript from the April 19, 2012, hearing does not reflect a specific order for Karie to appear at the May 31, 2012, hearing, his nonappearance could not support the bail forfeiture order.
Our Supreme Court's 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 5 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 this 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, Karie had notice of the May 31, 2012, hearing, did not execute a written waiver of his right to be present, and failed to appear without sufficient excuse. Accordingly, under Safety National, Karie's nonappearance provided an adequate basis for the court's order forfeiting the bond.
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