People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co.

Opinion

WISEMAN, Acting P. J. In this bail forfeiture action, appellant, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company (Accredited), challenges the trial court’s order [166]entering summary judgment on the forfeited bail bond. According to Accredited, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to declare bail forfeited based on the defendant’s nonappearance when the criminal proceedings against the defendant had been suspended for mental competency proceedings under Penal Code1 section 1368.

Contrary to Accredited’s position, the section 1368 proceedings did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the bail bond. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES

In June 2009, Accredited posted a $70,000 bail bond to secure the release of defendant, Leonardo Birrueta Cabadas. Cabadas had been charged with felony assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (§ 245, subd. (b).)

In August 2009, Cabadas appeared in court and was ordered to report to a private psychologist for evaluation. The criminal proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368. During the section 1368 proceedings, Cabadas appeared in court as ordered in September and October 2009.

On November 12, 2009, Cabadas appeared and the matter was continued. Cabadas was then ordered to appear on November 19, 2009, for a further hearing on the section 1368 proceedings. The criminal proceedings remained suspended.

Cabadas failed to appear on November 19 and the bail was declared forfeited. A notice of forfeiture was mailed to Accredited and to the bail agent.

The court entered summary judgment on the forfeiture on August 17, 2010. Accredited moved to set aside the summary judgment and discharge the forfeiture on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to forfeit the bond after the criminal proceedings were suspended and Cabadas was referred for evaluation pursuant to section 1368.

The court denied the motion, concluding that Accredited had raised an interesting argument but that, if correct, Accredited’s position would create chaos for the criminal justice system. The court observed that it “would be essentially allowing the defendant to roam free without any ability to bring him back