People v. Surety Insurance

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 1976 No. Civ. 2436Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that under the 1969 amendment to Penal Code section 1305, a trial court has the discretion to grant a reasonable continuance upon a defendant's initial failure to appear without immediately forfeiting bail, and retains jurisdiction to order forfeiture if the defendant fails to appear at the continued date.

Issues

Whether a trial court loses jurisdiction to order bail forfeiture if it grants a continuance upon a defendant's initial failure to appear.
Whether the failure to provide notice of forfeiture for each individual bond issued for a single defendant invalidates the forfeiture.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is therefore apparent that the Legislature intended to vest some discretion in the trial court as to whether or not a forfeiture was mandated immediately upon non appearance by changing “must” to “may.””

“Since the court is thus specifically authorized by the amendment to postpone its decision, it certainly retains jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture at a later time.”

“Section 1305 of the Penal Code does not require notice be given as to each bond forfeited on a single individual.”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant, Surety Insurance Company, appeals from a judgment decreeing the forfeiture of two bail bonds in the aggregate of $25,000 issued by the defendant for the appearance of one Melvin Liel.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. One Melvin Liel was indicted by the grand jury on 11 counts involving generally the possession of various narcotics, dangerous drugs and explosives. Throughout the proceedings relative to the charges against him he was free on bonds aggregating $25,000, one bond being in the penal sum of $12,000 and another in the sum of $13,000. Ultimately, Melvin Liel entered pleas of guilty to two counts in the indictment, a probationary hearing was set for September 4, 1973, and Melvin Liel was permitted to remain on bond until the date of the hearing.

Melvin Liel failed to appear at the appointed time on September 4. His counsel informed the court that his client had told him that he had gone to Stockton for medical treatment due to severe internal bleeding. The clerk’s minutes reflect the following order of the court:

“Bench warrant be issued for failure to appear. Stay of execution of service on same granted until Thursday, Sept. 6, 1973 at 8:15 a.m.

“Bail forfeited if no appearance on above date.”

Melvin Liel did not appear at the appointed time on September 6 or at any time thereafter. The court ordered the bail bonds to be forfeited and that the bench warrant for Liel’s arrest be served.

The appellant bonding company was not notified on the occasion of defendant’s failure to appear on September 4. The appellant was immediately notified of the nonappearance and bail forfeiture on

[200]

September 6, but, inexplicably, only notice of forfeiture of the $12,000 bond was given. A warrant issued for defendant Liel’s arrest but he has not been apprehended.

Within the six months’ time provided by law, appellant moved to vacate the forfeiture and for exoneration of the bond. The motion was denied and summary judgment was entered in favor of respondent. A subsequent motion to set aside the summary judgment was also denied.

People v. Surety Insurance

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief