People v. United States Fire Insurance Company CA6

Filed 11/7/23 P. v. United States Fire Insurance Company 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H050369 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B2002217)

v.

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire) appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture of a bail bond and the summary judgment subsequently entered against it. U.S. Fire argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture at a May 11, 20211 hearing because it did not declare a forfeiture at a hearing on February 24 when the on-bail defendant, John Alexander Kenyanjui, failed to appear. As detailed below, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Kenyanjui’s appearance was excused at the February 24 hearing and thus the trial court retained jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture when he subsequently failed to appear at the May 11 hearing. We will therefore affirm the order and judgment.

1 Unless otherwise specified, all dates are from the year 2021.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about February 10, after Kenyanjui was charged with six felonies, U.S. Fire, through its agent Aardwolf Bail Bonds, posted a $250,000 bail bond for Kenyanjui’s release from custody. The trial court ordered Kenyanjui to appear at his arraignment on February 24. On February 24, Kenyanjui was not present in court, but the public defender stated he was “appear[ing] [Penal Code section] 977”2 and requested appointment. The public defender informed the court that he was in touch with Kenyanjui who was “getting into a program[] . . . [and was] taking care of his matters in other [c]ounties.” The public defender requested that his office be appointed to represent Kenyanjui and sought a future plea date. At the public defender’s request, the trial court continued the matter to May 11 for entry of plea. When the trial court subsequently asked if the public defender had “recent and good contact” with Kenyanjui, the public defender replied, “Yes, Your Honor, as of today.” The public defender stated, “I will let [Kenyanjui] know, and we will go from there.” On May 11, Kenyanjui failed to appear and the trial court ordered forfeiture of bail. The clerk mailed notice of forfeiture to U.S. Fire on May 20. After obtaining an extension of time, U.S. Fire moved to vacate forfeiture in June 2022. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion to vacate forfeiture in a written order dated July 21, 2022. In that order, the trial court noted that Kenyanjui failed to appear at his arraignment on February 24 as required by section 977. However, under “Emergency Rule 5” defense counsel could, with their client’s consent, “appear on behalf of their felony defendant clients at arraignment.” Having reviewed the transcript of the February 24 arraignment, the trial court concluded that there was “implicit consent by [Kenyanjui] for defense counsel to appear on his behalf[] [¶] [and] [t]herefore, the Court finds