We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In People v. Lexington National Insurance Corporation,
1 Cal. App. 5th 1144 (2016), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial
court’s denial of Lexington National Insurance
Corporation’s (“Lexington’s”) request for
relief from bail forfeiture, rejecting Lexington’s argument
that “the court lacked jurisdiction to declare the bail
forfeited, because the defendant in the case, Natalie Duffy, was
not required to attend the hearing at which she failed to
appear.”
Lexington posted a $50,000 bail bond for Duffy’s release
from custody after she was charged with misdemeanor child
endangerment and resisting arrest. Duffy appeared with her counsel
on August 29, 2013. The court set a pretrial hearing for October 1,
2013, telling. Duffy: “You are ordered to go back to
Department 87 up on the second floor,. Duffy, October 1st, 9:00
a.m. for your pretrial.” On October 1, 2013,. Duffy’s
counsel appeared, but she did not, resulting in the court ordering
her $50,000 bail forfeited. “Lexington brought a motion to
vacate forfeiture and reinstate the bond pursuant to Penal Code
section 1305. The court denied the motion, and entered judgment
against Lexington.”
Lexington argued “the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
forfeit bail, because Duffy was not required to appear at the
pretrial hearing at which the court ordered bail
forfeited.”
The Court noted the purpose of a bail bond is to ensure the
criminal defendant’s appearance in court and compliance with
court orders, where such compliance is enforced by making the
surety a debtor for the bond amount should the defendant fail to do
so. While forfeiture is generally disfavored, the surety bears the
burden of showing the forfeiture should be set aside. The trial
court’s determination is subject to an abuse of discretion
standard on review, meaning the decision stands unless it
“exceeds the bounds of reason, all circumstances being
considered.”
The California Penal Code governs bond forfeitures:
The trial court must declare bail forfeited if, without
sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear at arraignment,
trial, judgment, or “[a]ny other occasion prior to the
pronouncement of judgment if the defendant's presence in court
is lawfully required.” (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd.
(a)(4).) In addition, Penal Code section 977, subdivision (a)(1)
provides: “In all cases in which the accused is charged with
a misdemeanor only, he or she may appear by counsel only, except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). If the accused agrees, the
initial court appearance, arraignment, and plea may be by video, as
provided by subdivision (c).”
Lexington argued that. Duffy “was not lawfully required to
appear in court for the pretrial conference and was entitled to
have counsel appear for her under Penal Code section 977,
subdivision (a)(1)” as she was charged with a
misdemeanor.
The Court determined the recent decision in People v. Safety
National Casualty Corporation, 62 Cal. 4th 703 (2016)
(affirming bail forfeiture based on failure to appear at a
rescheduled pretrial conference) controlled, rejecting
Lexington’s argument that the Safety National
holding was narrowly drawn so as to only encompass criminal
defendants charged with a felony:
While Safety National involved a defendant charged with a
felony, the court's rationale that a defendant is lawfully
required to appear when specifically ordered to do so is equally
applicable to a misdemeanor case. We hold that when a court orders
a defendant charged with either a felony or a misdemeanor to
personally appear in court, his or her “presence in court is
lawfully required,” within the meaning of Penal Code section
1305, subdivision (a)(4), and a court may order bail forfeited if
that defendant fails to appear.
Here, the court specifically ordered Duffy to appear at the
October 1, 2013 pretrial conference by stating: “You are
ordered to go back to Department 87 up on the second floor, Ms.
Duffy, October 1st, 9:00 a.m. for your pretrial. Thank you.”
As a result, Duffy was “‘lawfully
required’” to appear at the pretrial conference, and
when she failed to do so, the court properly ordered bail
forfeited. (Safety National, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 716;
Pen. Code § 1305, subd. (a)(4).)
Here, as in Safety National, Duffy was commanded to
appear for a pretrial conference, and failed to personally appear
without sufficient excuse. Accordingly, under Safety
National, Duffy's nonappearance provided an adequate basis
for the court's order forfeiting the bond.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
"Litigation hold" is a notice requiring the preservation of all data that may relate to a claim or lawsuit. "Spoliation" is the loss or destruction of evidence relative to a legal proceeding.
An engineer's employment contract provision broadly limiting his post-termination solicitation of former co-workers for competitive employment is an unenforceable restraint of trade.
I typically write about lawsuits filed by the SEC, but this time I wanted to write about a civil case that was filed by a number of the victims of a Nephi man named Thomas E. Andrews.
The Seventh Circuit recently reviewed a district court's dismissal of an FCA claim against the City of Chicago, in which the relator alleged that the City's certifications of compliance with civil rights laws were false...
Reminiscent of the fable of the Elephant and the Blind Men, the United States Supreme Court's splendidly opaque May 16, 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins has left counsel for both plaintiffs...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Court's Inherent Authority To Deem Motions Abandoned: Even The Non-Prevailing Party Gets Lucky Sometimes (Video Content)
