Opinion
F080752
01-22-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant; BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant, Real Party in Interest and Appellants. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 1489891)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna F. Reeves, Judge. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant, Real Party in Interest and Appellants. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
In this appeal, a surety contends the February 2017 summary judgment entered on its bail bond is void and subject to a collateral attack. We reject the legal theory advanced by the surety to support its contention that the summary judgment is void. When a criminal defendant has a "sufficient excuse" for not appearing at the scheduled hearing and, contrary to the requirements of Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a), the trial court declares the bail bond forfeited, the subsequently entered summary judgment is merely voidable, not void. In other words, a trial court in that situation does not lack fundamental jurisdiction when it declares the forfeiture.
All unlabeled references to a statutory provision are to the Penal Code. --------
The February 2017 summary judgment became final after this court's issuance of remittitur in an earlier appeal. (See People v. The North River Insurance Company (July 24, 2019, F075353) [nonpub. opn. affirming the Feb. 2017 summary judgment].) Because the summary judgment is final and is not void, it is not subject to the surety's latest attack. Therefore, the trial court correctly refused to grant the surety's motion to vacate summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond.
We therefore affirm the summary judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In July 2015, Oscar Rivera was charged with felony counts of battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) and assault likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), both with enhancements (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). At an August 3, 2015 hearing, Oscar waived time for the preliminary hearing and his bail was reduced to $30,000. Two days later, Bad Boys Bail Bonds, acting as the agent for The North River Insurance Company (collectively, Surety) posted a $30,000 bail bond for Oscar's release.
On November 5, 2015, Oscar and his codefendants failed to appear for arraignment. The trial court noted Oscar and his codefendants normally were at the court before him and were "usually waiting in the hallway when I come, and I believe that they were probably traveling from out of town." Exercising its discretionary authority under section 1305.1, the court did not forfeit bail, but continued the hearing until November 20, 2015, so the defendants could present themselves in court to prevent the forfeiture of bail.
On November 20, 2015, Oscar and his codefendants failed to appear. After hearing from the defendants' attorneys about defendants' return to Mexico after their visas expired, the trial court stated in open court that "each defendant's bail bond is forfeited."
In December 2015, the clerk of court mailed a timely notice of forfeiture of Oscar's bail bond to Surety. The initial 180-day appearance period, increased by an additional five days for the mailing of notice, ended on June 17, 2016. Subsequently, pursuant to a motion brought under section 1305.4, the trial court extended the deadline for Oscar to appear to December 14, 2016.
In December 2016, Surety filed a timely motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail. The trial court denied the motion to exonerate the bond and entered summary judgment on Oscar's bail bond on February 27, 2017. Surety appealed.
In an unpublished opinion issued in July 2019, we affirmed the February 2017 summary judgment entered on Oscar's bail bond. Our decision became final and we issued a remittitur to the trial court in September 2019. Surety's Second Appeal
In October 2019, Surety filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment entered on the forfeited bond, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. Surety argued the trial court was presented with a sufficient excuse for defendants' absence on November 20, 2015, and, therefore, a jurisdictional prerequisite for forfeiture was not satisfied. Surety further argued that the lack of jurisdiction rendered the forfeiture and ensuing summary judgment void and therefore subject to collateral attack.
In January 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to vacate the summary judgment. The court's minute order stated Surety's motion was denied and the "Court does not have jurisdiction." In February 2020, Surety appealed.
DISCUSSION
For Surety to obtain a reversal in this appeal, it must prevail on its argument that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction when it declared the forfeiture of Oscar's bail bond. In a published opinion involving one of Oscar's codefendants, we rejected Surety's argument that the absence of a " 'jurisdictional prerequisite' " listed in section 1305, subdivision (a), deprived the trial court of jurisdiction in a " 'fundamental' " sense. (People v. The North River Insurance Company (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 300, 306.) That holding applies with equal force in this appeal. Therefore, we conclude the trial court "had the authority to hear and determine the forfeiture issue." (Id. at p. 314.) As a result, "its order declaring the forfeiture was, at most, an act in excess of its statutory power." (Ibid.) "When a summary judgment is 'entered "in excess of jurisdiction" ' it is voidable and should be challenged directly." (Id. at p. 311.)
Consequently, the February 2017 summary judgment is, at most, voidable and it is not subject to collateral attack. (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 663, 665 [voidable judgment was not subject to collateral attack because the surety had the means to challenge the judgment earlier].) As a result, Surety's second challenge to that judgment must fail because it is a collateral attack.
DISPOSITION
The summary judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.