County of Santa Barbara vs Financial Casualty & Surety Inc

Case Number

24CV00541

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/03/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Set Aside

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of defendant Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture, and exonerate bail, is granted. Summary judgment on the bail bond forfeiture entered on January 30, 2024, and filed on January 31, 2024, is set aside. In addition, the forfeiture of defendant’s bond number FCSSO-2467448 is vacated, and the bond is exonerated.

Background:

Court records reflect that on August 5, 2022, defendant Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., through its bail agent Bail Hotline Bail Bonds (Surety), posted bail bond no. FCS502467448 (the bail bond) in the amount of $30,000, as security for the appearance of Thomas Patrick Campbell (Campbell) on October 5, 2024, in Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara case no. 21CR05460. On October 6, 2022, after Campbell failed to appear in the Santa Barbara Superior Court, and the court declared the bail forfeited. The clerk of the court mailed a notice of forfeiture of the bail bond on October 12, 2022.

On January 30, 2024, summary judgment on the forfeiture was entered against Surety in favor of the County of Santa Barbara (the County), in the amount of $30,000.00, together with interest at 10 percent per annum, plus costs pursuant to Government Code section 1603.5 (the summary judgment). The summary judgment was filed on January 31, 2024, and a notice of its entry was served by the court clerk on February 1, 2024.

On February 28, 2024, Surety filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment, discharge the forfeiture, and exonerate the bail bond, on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter summary judgment because the court failed to order the bail bond forfeited when Campbell failed to appear in court on October 5, 2022. The motion is opposed by the County.

Analysis:

The forfeiture of bail is addressed in Penal Code section 1305, which provides that a court must “in open court” declare bail forfeited if, “without sufficient excuse”, a defendant fails to appear for an arraignment, trial, judgment, or “[a]ny other occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required[,]” or “[t]o surrender him or herself in execution of the judgment after appeal.” (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a)(1)(A)-(E).) “Generally, ‘[i]f the court fails to declare a forfeiture at the time of the defendant’s unexcused absence, it is without jurisdiction to do so later.’ [Citations.]” (People v. North River Insurance Company (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 300, 309 (North River).)

Available information and evidence offered by Surety, on which the County also relies, shows that on October 5, 2022, a warrant arraignment (the arraignment) was scheduled in case number 21CR05460 entitled the People of the State of California vs. Thomas Patrick Campbell (the criminal case). (Motion, Exhs. B [Oct. 5, 2022, Minute Order] & C [reporter’s transcript of the arraignment].) The reporter’s transcript of the proceeding held on October 5, 2022, reflects that Campbell was initially present in court via Zoom and represented by attorney Annie Hayes. (Motion, Exh. C at p. 1, ll. 15-16; p. 2; p. 3, ll. 2-8; p. 4, ll. 11-13.) The bail bond was posted at the October 5, 2022, arraignment. (Id. at p. 4, ll. 1-2.)

The reporter’s transcript further reflects that, during the arraignment proceeding, a discussion was held by the court regarding what appear to be issues relating to different criminal cases involving Campbell which counsel for the County requested be “brought in” and calendared. (See Motion, Exh. C at p. 4, ll. 4-23 & p. 5, ll. 21-22 [County counsel’s request that “22CR06468” to be placed “on calendar”].) The issues discussed at the arraignment appear to relate to a 2021 pending felony, a purported failure of Campbell to report to probation, unsuccessful attempts to contact Campbell, a request for remand, the recall of an active bench warrant, the court’s vacating of the forfeiture of a different bail bond, and other matters. (Motion, Exh. C at p. 3, l. 11 – p. 5, l. 26.) After this discussion, the court stated to Campbell that he would “have to remain” at the arraignment because there were “issues that we need to straighten out” that were “not as straightforward as it looked….” (Id. at p. 3, l. 11 – p. 5, l. 22.) Thereafter, the court issued a “second call”. (Id. at p. 5, ll. 19-22; p. 6, l. 2.)

After a “pause” in the arraignment proceeding, the court noted that Campbell was “supposed to be here” and that Campbell was “here briefly, and then I suppose when he heard about two other cases, he got cold feet”, and stated it did not “know what to do about” Campbell. (Motion, Exh. C at p. 6, ll. 10-18.) The court further stated that “so I don’t forfeit bail”, the court would “find good cause to continue, giving [Campbell] the benefit of the doubt”  and that Campbell “may” have “misunderstood something” because Campbell was present earlier. (Id. at p. 6, ll. 25-28 & p. 7, l. 1.) The court ordered the matter continued to October 6, 2022, and ordered Campbell to personally attend. (Id. at p. 7, ll. 21-22.) The court’s October 5, 2022, Minute Order notes that Campbell was not present on that day. (Motion, Ex. B.)

On October 6, 2022, the date of the continued arraignment, the court issued its Minute Order noting that Campbell was not present on that day, and that Campbell was present on October 5, 2022, but left. (Motion, Exh. D.) In the October 6, 2022, Minute Order, the court ordered the bail bond forfeited. (Ibid.)

The parties do not for present purposes dispute that Campbell’s presence in court was lawfully required on October 5, 2022. (See Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a)(1)(D); see generally Pen. Code, § 977; People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 710–712 (Safety National) [general discussion regarding when a defendant’s presence may be “lawfully required”].) Rather, the present dispute centers on whether the court was required to declare the bond forfeited on October 5, 2022, upon Campbell’s unexcused absence from the arraignment, or whether the court had a reason to believe that a sufficient excuse may exist for Campbell’s absence.

“If the defendant fails to appear for arraignment … when his or her appearance is lawfully required, but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear, the court may continue the case for a period it deems reasonable to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant.” (Pen. Code, § 1305.1; see also Safety National, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 710.) “Whether there is a sufficient excuse for a defendant’s failure to appear ‘will depend upon the circumstances in the individual case.’ [Citation.] … ‘[A] defendant’s failure to appear without explanation is presumptively without sufficient excuse and the burden of rebutting such presumption rests with the defendant’s representatives or those who are interested in avoiding a forfeiture.’ [Citation.]” (North River, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 310.)

In determining whether a sufficient excuse exists, “the test is not whether it has been conclusively demonstrated a defendant had an actual and valid excuse for his nonappearance to justify continuing a hearing without declaring a bail forfeiture. Instead, the statute requires the court only have ‘reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear.’ ” (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 945, 953 (Ranger); Pen. Code, § 1305.1.) The court has broad discretion to determine whether a defendant’s failure to appear is “without sufficient excuse”. (People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 898, 905-906.)

The evidence and information offered by the parties, including the record of the arraignment proceeding, establishes that the court did not excuse Campbell from attending the arraignment on October 5, 2022. Though direct evidence of a sufficient excuse is not necessary to explain or justify Campbell’s unexcused absence from the arraignment, there is no factual basis in the record presently before the court to demonstrate that the court had a reason to believe that a sufficient excuse might exist for Campbell failure to remain at the arraignment on October 5, 2022. By way of example, there is no information or evidence to indicate that Campbell’s absence was unusual based on Campbell’s past behavior with respect to required appearances at previous proceedings. (See, e.g., Ranger, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 953 [court’s experience over a period of several months was sufficient to provide a rational basis to believe there might exist a sufficient excuse for defendant’s failure to appear].)

Further, though the court generally surmised that Campbell may have misunderstood something or gotten “cold feet”, the transcript of the October 5, 2022, proceeding shows that neither the court nor counsel for Campbell were aware of any reason for Campbell’s unexcused absence also considering that Campbell had expressly and affirmatively agreed to remain present at the arraignment. (People v. Surety Ins. Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 22, 25, 27-28 [finding an insufficient showing of excuse where court acknowledged it was not aware of any reason why defendant was not present].) For example, the transcript reflects that the court recognized that Campbell was supposed to be present. (Motion, Exh. C at p. 7, ll. 16-18.) In addition, Campbell affirmed that he understood the court’s directive to remain at the arraignment. (See, e.g., Motion at Exh. C, p. 5, l. 25 – p. 6, l. 3 [explicit statement by Campbell indicating that, in response to the court’s order that Campbell remain, he understood and agreed that he would remain].)

Moreover, the County fails to explain why the court’s comments regarding Campbell getting “cold feet” constitutes a rational basis for finding a sufficient excuse for Campbell’s failure to appear at the arraignment. For these reasons, the present record suggests that the court was not aware of any excuse, implicit or explicit, for Campbell’s unexcused absence resulting from Campbell’s failure to remain at the arraignment.

By way of further example, though counsel for Campbell requested a continuance and stated she would attempt to reach Campbell (see Motion, Exh. C at p. 6, ll. 21-24), counsel’s statement merely demonstrates “counsel’s desire to bring [Campbell] into court” and not an “implicit excuse from which a court could reasonably believe that [Campbell] was absent with an excuse.” (People v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 963, 969 (Surety).) There is nothing in the record presently before the court to demonstrate that counsel’s statements suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that there existed an excuse for why Campbell failed to remain at the arraignment as instructed by the court. For this additional reason, the evidence does not demonstrate any rational basis from which a court could infer that Campbell was absent or failed to remain on October 5, 2022, with an excuse. (Id. at p. 969 [absence of statements from counsel from which a justification for defendant’s absence could be implied “compels the conclusion that the trial court did not have reason to believe that sufficient excuse may have existed for defendant's failure to appear”].)

Considering all available evidence and information presently before the court and for all reasons discussed above, there does not exist a rational factual basis for finding a sufficient implicit or explicit excuse for Campbell’s failure to remain at his arraignment on October 5, 2022. Therefore, Penal Code section 1305 requires that the court declare the bail bond forfeited upon Campbell’s failure to appear at the arraignment on October 5, 2022. Because the forfeiture of the bail bond was not declared upon Campbell’s nonappearance at his arraignment on October 5, 2022, the court was deprived of jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture on October 6, 2022, at the continued arraignment. Accordingly, and for all reasons more fully discussed above, the court will grant the motion of Surety and order the summary judgment set aside, the forfeiture of the bail bond vacated, and the bail bond exonerated.