207 Cal. App. 4th 163
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Accredited posted a $70,000 bail bond in June 2009 to secure Cabadas's release on felony assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (b)).
- In August 2009, Cabadas's criminal proceedings were suspended pursuant to Penal Code § 1368 for mental competency evaluation; he thereafter appeared for competency proceedings in Sept.–Oct. 2009.
- On November 12, 2009, Cabadas appeared and the matter was continued; he was ordered to appear again on November 19, 2009, for further competency hearing while proceedings remained suspended.
- Cabadas failed to appear on November 19, 2009, the bail was forfeited, and notices were mailed to Accredited and the bail agent.
- The trial court entered summary judgment on the forfeiture on August 17, 2010; Accredited moved to set aside, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to § 1368 proceedings disconnected from the charged offenses.
- The court denied the motion, concluding that forfeiture was appropriate and that competency proceedings are part of answering the charges under the bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1368 divested the court of jurisdiction to forfeit the bond. | Accredited argues competency proceedings meant the bond forfeiture did not cover appearances. | People contends the bond covers appearances tied to the charges, including competency hearings. | Ja, the court held jurisdiction exists to forfeit. |
| Whether appearance at a competency hearing is an appearance guaranteed by the bond. | Bond guarantees appearances to answer charges, including competency-related appearances. | Competency proceedings are separate from but connected to the charges covered by the bond. | Bond guaranteed appearance at competency proceedings; court has jurisdiction to declare forfeiture. |
| Whether the bond remains in force during competency proceedings until restoration or exoneration. | Bond continues to insure attendance during competency actions. | Bond should be exonerated if commitment or restoration occurs. | Bond remains in effect until competency outcome or exoneration. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) (bail and forfeiture are civil in nature and enforce bond terms)
- People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co., 87 Cal.App.4th 69 (Cal. App. 2001) (bond contract as guarantor of appearance; liability limited to terms)
- People v. King Bail Bond Agency, 224 Cal.App.3d 1120 (Cal. App. 1990) (appearance to answer charges guaranteed by bond)
- People v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 150 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. App. 2007) (liability limited to coverage of appearances mandated by bond)
- People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 185 Cal.App.4th 1391 (Cal. App. 2010) (competency proceedings relate to charges in bond)