People v. American Surety Co. CA2/6

Filed 5/29/25 P. v. American Surety Co. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Civ. No. B338852 (Super. Ct. No. 23CV05612) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

When a criminal defendant fails to appear at a required court appearance without sufficient excuse, the trial court is required to forfeit bail at that time. The criminal court here did not forfeit bail at the defendant’s initial failure to appear. The court later forfeited bail when the defendant again failed to appear. It then denied two identical motions to vacate forfeiture that raised the same issue—whether the court lost jurisdiction over the bond when it did not forfeit bail after the defendant’s initial failure to appear. American Surety Company (American) contends that at a

later hearing the civil court erred when it subsequently denied its motion to set aside the summary judgment against the bond on the basis that it was bound by the criminal court’s prior rulings denying its motions to vacate. We agree and reverse.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY American posted a $100,000 bail bond in criminal case number 21CR05624 for Marlon Anibal Valle-Mejia (the defendant). On June 21, 2022, the defendant appeared remotely with counsel at a hearing to set the preliminary examination. The court continued the case to July 19 for another hearing to set the preliminary examination. The court did not explicitly order the defendant to personally appear at the hearing. The defendant did not appear on July 19. His attorney told the court the defendant appeared at the last hearing via Zoom from the attorney’s office, “[s]o he knew about today’s date.” Counsel did not offer a reason why the defendant did not appear. Neither the attorney nor the probation department were thereafter able to contact the defendant. The probation department requested the case be continued so it could interview the defendant and prepare a “preplea” report. The prosecutor said, “Let’s give him the extra week, Your Honor.” The court continued the case until August 8 and issued and held a bench warrant. The court continued the bail bond without finding good cause to do so. On August 8, counsel announced he was “appearing for the