People v. The North River Insurance Co. CA6

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. The North River Insurance Co. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051934 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2202663)

v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE CO. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants The North River Insurance Company and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively “North River”) issued a bail bond on behalf of Juan Carlos Gonzalez. Gonzalez later failed to appear at a plea hearing with no excuse, and his defense counsel’s call to Gonzalez’s phone had gone to voicemail. The trial court did not forfeit the bail bond, and it continued the case for 41 days. The bail bond was forfeited at the continued hearing when Gonzalez failed to appear a second time. North River moved unsuccessfully to vacate the forfeiture. North River argues on appeal that the trial court should have vacated the forfeiture because there was no sufficient excuse to continue the bail bond and, alternatively, that the length of the continuance was unreasonable. We will reverse the decision, finding a 41-day continuance unreasonable on these facts. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Gonzalez was charged in March 2022 with possessing a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850,

subd. (a)). North River issued a $50,000 bail bond for Gonzalez that same month. Gonzalez appeared at two hearings after being released on bail, in April and July 2022. With Gonzalez present, his defense counsel requested an eight-week continuance at the July 2022 change of plea hearing “to obtain some additional information from my client, some mitigation.” Gonzalez failed to appear at the continued plea hearing in August 2022. Defense counsel stated: “Gonzalez is not present today. I know he was present at the last court date, and I believe the previous court date as well. I do have a good phone number for him. I called it. Unfortunately, it went straight to voice mail. I’m wondering if the Court will stay a warrant.” The court asked if counsel had “an address for him,” and counsel confirmed that “we do.” The court continued the hearing for approximately six weeks without forfeiting the bail bond or issuing a bench warrant. Gonzalez again failed to appear at the next hearing in October 2022. The trial court forfeited the bail bond and issued a bench warrant. North River moved to vacate the bond forfeiture, arguing that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the bond by failing to forfeit it when Gonzalez failed to appear without sufficient excuse at the August 2022 hearing. The trial court denied the motion by written order, finding that defense counsel “provided a sufficient excuse for why [Gonzalez] was not present and was unlikely to skip court again.” The court stated “there was a sufficient (albeit implied) excuse for the trial court not to forfeit bail” and concluded the length of the continuance was reasonable. Summary judgment on the forfeiture was entered the next month, and this appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION “A court shall in open court declare forfeited” a bail bond if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear at a hearing where the defendant’s presence is lawfully required. (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a).) A “defendant’s failure to appear without explanation is presumptively without sufficient excuse and the burden of 2