San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogDefendant may be excused from personal appearance at trial readiness conference
People v. United States Fire Insurance Company (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 1, 2025, No. D085717) 2025 WL 2792119, at *1–3
Summary: United States Fire Insurance Company (United) appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to set aside summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture. United claims that because the trial court failed to forfeit bail at the criminal defendant’s first unexcused failure to appear when lawfully required, the bond was exonerated and the subsequent entry of summary judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed because the trial court was not divested of jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bond on the date it ordered forfeiture.
BACKGROUND
Gonzalez was charged with murder (Pen. Code,§ 187, subd. (a)). The trial court set bail at $1 million and ordered him to “return on any and all future hearing dates.” On December 23, 2020, United posted a $1 million bond for Gonzalez’s release.
After his release, Gonzalez personally appeared in court at hearings in February and April 2021. On April 8, Gonzalez executed a written waiver of his physical presence and authorized his attorney to appear on his behalf at subsequent proceedings pursuant to section 977, which the trial court accepted.
At a hearing on March 15, 2022, Gonzalez’s attorney appeared on his behalf under section 977 and informed the court Gonzalez was not present because he was in custody. Gonzalez had been arrested the day before on a separate domestic violence matter. The prosecutor informed the court that Gonzalez had not yet been arraigned on the new case. After setting trial on the murder case for June 29, 2022, at the request of the parties, the court calendared an “intervening” date of April 26, 2022 “for arraignment on the new case” and a “TRC” (trial readiness conference) on the murder case.
According to the March 15, 2022 minute order, Gonzalez was “ordered to return on any and all future hearing dates” and the current bail bond was continued.
On April 26, 2022—the date on which United contends the trial court should have forfeited the bail bond—Gonzalez was not present and his attorney appeared through the section 977 waiver. The court continued the trial readiness conference to May 18. At this time, the court “ordered [Gonzalez] to be personally present” at the next hearing.
On May 18, 2022, Gonzalez did not appear. His attorney appeared 977 and reported Gonzalez had tested positive for COVID-19. At defense counsel’s request, the trial court set an “additional” trial readiness conference for June 2 and ordered Gonzalez to personally appear and to provide a doctor’s note.
Forfeiture of the bond
On June 2, 2022, Gonzalez was not present in court. The trial court vacated the trial date, forfeited the bond, and timely sent notice to United.
In May 2023, United filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond. United argued the trial court was required to forfeit bond on April 26, 2022 when Gonzalez did not appear “without sufficient excuse,” and consequently it lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond on June 2.
In June 2023, the trial court denied United’s motion to vacate the bond forfeiture.
On February 13, 2024, after the requisite time lapsed, the trial court entered summary judgment. The judgment required United to pay $1 million for the bail and $450 in costs.
In September 2024, United filed a motion to set aside summary judgment and to exonerate the bond. It argued that the June 2, 2022 forfeiture order was void because the trial court was without jurisdiction to order forfeiture, having failed to order the bond forfeited on April 26.
DISCUSSION
“[A]n order denying a motion to vacate summary judgment on a bail bond forfeiture is … an appealable order and is a proper vehicle for considering a jurisdictional attack on the summary judgment.” (People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1, 5, fn. 4, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 87 (Bankers).) Here, the review is of statutory construction or contract interpretation, and the evidence is not in dispute, and review is de novo. (County of Yolo v. American Surety Co. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 520, 524–525, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 542; People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 456, 461, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 668.)
When bail is forfeited
A trial court “shall” declare bail forfeited when the defendant “without sufficient excuse” fails to appear at arraignment, trial, judgment, and post-appeal surrender or any other proceeding at which “the defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required.” (§ 1305, subd. (a)(1)(A)–(E).) For purposes of section 1305, subdivision (a)(1)(E), “a defendant’s presence may be deemed ‘lawfully required’ when a specific court order commands his or her appearance at a date and time certain, or when a defendant has actual notice of a mandatory appearance—even without a court order—because he or she was present when the date and time of the appearance were set.” (People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 710, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 366 P.3d 57 (Safety National).)
The trial court may continue the bond if the defendant’s appearance is lawfully required but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appeal. (§ 1305.1.) However, the court must order forfeiture of a bail bond the first time a defendant does not appear without sufficient excuse. (§ 1305, subd. (a); see People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1044, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 881.) If the court fails to do this, it loses jurisdiction over the bond and cannot on a later date order it forfeited. (Safety National, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 710, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 366 P.3d 57.)
United argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the bond forfeited on June 2, 2022 because, in its view, Gonzalez was first required to personally appear in court on April 26 and failed to appear without sufficient excuse. It contends Gonzalez’s personal appearance was required on April 26 because (1) the court had ordered him to personally appear on April 26 or (2) alternatively, a trial readiness conference is a mandatory hearing for which a section 977 waiver is ineffective. The court had jurisdiction to order the bail bond forfeited on June 2.
A trial readiness conference is not a mandatory hearing for which a section 977 waiver is ineffective. In felony cases, section 977 provides that the defendant “shall be physically present at the arraignment, at the time of plea, during the preliminary hearing, during those portions of the trial when evidence is taken before the trier of fact, and at the time of the imposition of sentence.” (§ 977, subd. (b)(1).) “[A]t all other proceedings,” the defendant may waive his or her right “to be physically or remotely present, with leave of court and with approval of defendant’s counsel.” A trial court may accept a defendant’s waiver of his personal appearance at a trial readiness conference.
Although the California Rules of Court,5 rule 4.112 provides that “[t]he defendant must be present in court” at a trial readiness conference in felony cases, the rule does not prohibit a defendant from waiving his personal appearance at a trial readiness conference pursuant to a section 977 waiver. (See People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1306, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 (Ranger); People v. Sacramento Bail Bonds (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 118, 121, 258 Cal.Rptr. 130 (Sacramento Bail Bonds).)
Ranger and Sacramento Bail Bonds expressly acknowledged that a waiver may permissibly excuse a defendant’s presence at a trial readiness conference.
Because a defendant may be excused from a trial readiness conference, the trial court was not required to forfeit the bond when Gonzalez appeared through his counsel pursuant to the section 977 waiver. The court was not divested of jurisdiction to order forfeiture on June 2. Summary judgment against United was properly entered and, consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on this basis.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.