People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying United States Fire Insurance Company’s motion to set aside summary judgment on a $1 million bail bond forfeiture. The court held that an order directing a defendant to return on “any and all future hearing dates” did not require personal attendance at every hearing, and that a Penal Code section 977 waiver could excuse the defendant’s personal appearance at a trial readiness conference. The court concluded that the trial court retained jurisdiction to forfeit the bond on a later date and affirmed, while declining to decide whether res judicata independently barred the challenge.

Holdings

1. An order directing a defendant to return on any and all future hearing dates is not, without more, an order requiring the defendant's personal presence at every hearing.
2. California Rules of Court, rule 4.112 does not prohibit a trial court from accepting a defendant's valid Penal Code section 977 waiver of personal presence at a felony trial readiness conference.
3. The trial court retained jurisdiction to order forfeiture on June 2 because the defendant's April 26 appearance through counsel pursuant to a valid section 977 waiver was not a failure to appear at a proceeding where his personal presence was lawfully required.
4. Summary judgment against United States Fire Insurance Company was properly entered, and the order denying the motion to set aside summary judgment was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an order directing a criminal defendant to return on any and all future hearing dates required the defendant's personal presence at the April 26, 2022 trial readiness conference.
2. Whether California Rules of Court, rule 4.112 prohibited the trial court from accepting the defendant's Penal Code section 977 waiver of personal presence at a felony trial readiness conference.
3. Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bond on June 2, 2022 because it did not forfeit the bond when the defendant appeared through counsel on April 26, 2022.
4. Whether summary judgment on the bail bond forfeiture was properly entered.

Disposition

affirmed