People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
G053419
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Defendant Raul Santillan pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI; court granted informal probation with suspended sentence.
- A bench warrant issued after alleged probation violations; surety posted a $50,000 bail bond when defendant was later arrested.
- Defendant repeatedly did not personally appear at numerous probation violation hearings but appeared through retained counsel.
- The court eventually ordered defendant to personally appear; defendant failed to appear at that hearing and the court forfeited the bond and entered summary judgment against the surety.
- The surety moved to set aside judgment and appealed, arguing Penal Code § 977 does not permit counsel to appear for a misdemeanor defendant at probation violation hearings, so the court should have declared forfeiture earlier and thereby lost later jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code § 977 permits counsel to appear for a misdemeanor defendant at a probation violation hearing | Court and People: a defendant's presence is only "lawfully required" when the court orders personal appearance; counsel may appear under § 977 until then | Surety: § 977 does not extend to probation violation hearings; failure to declare forfeiture at the initial nonappearance deprived court of later jurisdiction to forfeit | Court: § 977 covers the entire misdemeanor "case," including probation violation hearings; counsel may appear until court orders personal appearance; forfeiture was proper when defendant failed to appear after being ordered to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg Nat. Ins. Co., 235 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (definition of bail and surety obligations)
- People v. American Contractors Indem. Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) (bail bond is a surety contract guaranteeing defendant's appearance)
- People v. Tingcungco, 237 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court must declare forfeiture when defendant fails to appear)
- People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 194 Cal.App.4th 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (failure to timely declare forfeiture can exonerate bond by operation of law)
- People v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp., 1 Cal.App.5th 1144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (when court orders defendant to appear, presence is "lawfully required" under § 1305)
- Olney v. Municipal Court, 133 Cal.App.3d 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (defendant may waive personal presence at sentencing under § 977)
- Mills v. Municipal Court, 10 Cal.3d 288 (Cal. 1973) (§ 977 applies at plea and other proceedings)