Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Allegheny Casualty Company CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY 

COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

B322370

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SJ4708)

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court 

of Los Angeles County, Jerry B. Marshak, Commissioner, and 

Natalie Stone, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Law Office of John Rorabaugh and John Mark Rorabaugh

for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Richard P. Chastang, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Michael J. Gordon, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Allegheny Casualty Company appeals from an order 

denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate a bail bond 

that Allegheny’s agent posted to secure the release of Alfredo 

Sanchez and from the subsequent judgment against Allegheny. 

Allegheny argues the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond by 

failing to declare a forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305.11

when Sanchez failed to appear for his continued arraignment. 

Because there was no factual basis for the trial court’s finding 

Sanchez had a valid excuse for failing to appear, the trial court 

erred in denying Allegheny’s motion to vacate. Therefore, we 

reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Allegheny Posts a Bail Bond for Sanchez, and 

Sanchez Fails To Appear

On February 17, 2021 Allegheny, through its agent Answer 

Bail Bonds, posted a bond to secure Sanchez’s release from 

custody. Sanchez was released at 2:23 a.m. on February 18, 

2021; the bond ordered Sanchez to appear for his arraignment 

the same morning at 8:30 a.m. Sanchez did not appear then. At 

the hearing the trial court stated, “I’m really reluctant to forfeit 

the bond that [Sanchez] just posted a few hours ago.” The court 

reset Sanchez’s arraignment for March 4, 2021 and ordered the 

Los Angeles County Probation Department to give Sanchez notice

and file a proof of service. 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Sanchez did not appear on March 4, 2021. The proof of 

service showed the Probation Department, instead of sending 

Sanchez a notice to appear, mailed Sanchez a copy of the minute 

order from the February 18, 2021 hearing. The trial court stated 

that the minute order “minimally provided the notice,” but that

“supervised persons or lay persons” like Sanchez would not “know 

what to do with it.” The court said that, “before the court can 

forfeit someone’s bail and order a bench warrant as the 

consequence for a failing to appear in court for a prior court 

order, the supervised person has to have notice of his obligation 

to appear in the court.” The court stated it would not impute to

Sanchez “the wherewithal to figure out [from the minute order] 

where exactly the Parole/PRCS Department 83 in the CEN DIST” 

was. The court did not ask counsel for Sanchez whether she had 

been in contact with him. The court ruled the notice of the 

hearing was “not legally sufficient,” continued the arraignment 

“one more time” to March 18, 2021, and ordered Answer Bail 

Bonds to give Sanchez notice. 

Sanchez did not appear on March 18, 2021. The trial court 

ruled the notice of the hearing was legally sufficient, ordered the 

bail forfeited, and issued a bench warrant for Sanchez’s arrest. 

B. Allegheny Files a Motion To Vacate the Forfeiture and 

Exonerate Bail

The trial court issued a notice of forfeiture, and after the 

court granted Allegheny’s motion to extend the appearance 

period, Allegheny filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and 

exonerate bail. Allegheny argued that under section 1305, 

subdivision (a)(1), the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond 

when the court failed to order bail forfeited on February 18, 2021
4

and March 4, 2021, when Sanchez failed to appear. Allegheny 

contended the record failed to show a sufficient excuse for 

Sanchez’s failure to appear. The trial court denied the motion 

and entered summary judgment on the forfeited bond. The court 

subsequently entered judgment against Allegheny, and Allegheny 

timely appealed from the judgment and the order denying the 

motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail.

2

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

Under section 1269b, subdivision (a), “authorized jail 

personnel have the authority to ‘set a time and place for the 

appearance of the arrested person before the appropriate court 

and give notice thereof.’ Section 1269b further provides that ‘[i]f 

a defendant or arrested person so released fails to appear at the 

time and in the court so ordered upon his or her release from 

custody, Sections 1305 and 1306 apply.’” (County of Los Angeles 

v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 309, 312

(Financial Casualty).) Under section 1305, subdivision (a)(1), the

trial court must declare bail forfeited when the defendant is 

released on bail and fails to appear for arraignment, trial, 

judgment, or any other occasion when the defendant’s

appearance is “‘lawfully required.’” (See People v. Safety National 

Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 707.) 

2 Both are appealable. (See County of Los Angeles v. 

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 309, 314; 

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 

369, 376; County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group

(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1021.)
5

Section 1305.1, however, allows the court to “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” if the court has “reason to believe that sufficient excuse 

may exist” for the defendant’s failure to appear for arraignment

or otherwise “when his or her appearance is lawfully required.” 

(See People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 473, 477-

478.) “‘[T]he 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,’ but simply whether the trial court has ‘“reason 

to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to 

appear.”’” (Bankers Ins., at p. 482; see People v. Ranger Ins. Co.

(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 945, 953.) “The factual basis for the 

sufficient excuse finding must appear somewhere in the trial 

court record—in the minutes or in the reporter’s transcript.” 

(Bankers Ins., at p. 478; see People v. The North River Ins. Co.

(2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 784, 797.) 

“‘Where a statute such as [section 1305.1], requires a court 

to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, to follow a 

particular procedure, or to perform subject to certain limitations, 

an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction. 

[Citations.]’ [Citation.] Thus ‘[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.’” (People v. Bankers Ins. Co.,

supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 479; accord, People v. Safety National 

Casualty Corp., supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 710; see People v. The 

North River Ins. Co., supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 792 [“a trial 

court must ‘carefully follow [section 1305] or its acts may be 

found to be without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction’”].) “[B]ecause 
6

the law disfavors forfeitures, we strictly construe the statutes 

governing bail forfeiture in favor of the surety ‘“to protect the 

surety, and more importantly the individual citizens who pledge 

to the surety their property on behalf of persons seeking release 

from custody, in order to obtain the corporate bond.”’” (People v. 

Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 185, 190; 

see Bankers Ins., at pp. 478-479.)

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to set aside a 

bail forfeiture for abuse of discretion. But where, as here, the 

facts are undisputed and only legal issues are involved, our 

review is de novo. (Financial Casualty, supra, 5 Cal.5th at 

p. 314; People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., supra,

77 Cal.App.5th at p. 190; County of Yolo v. American Surety Co.

(2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 520, 524.) 

B. The Trial Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction by Failing 

To Declare the Bail Forfeited on March 4, 2021

Allegheny does not challenge the trial court’s ruling on 

February 18, 2021 that Sanchez had a sufficient excuse for failing 

to appear the morning of his release. But Allegheny argues that 

the bail bond required Sanchez to appear that morning and that 

the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond by failing to declare 

bail forfeited at the continued arraignment on March 4, 2021.

The People argue Sanchez’s (sufficient) excuse for failing to 

appear on that date authorized the trial court to continue the 

arraignment to March 18, 2021. In the procedural context of this 

case, Allegheny is correct. 

Sanchez was “lawfully required” to appear for his 

arraignment on February 18, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., because his bail 

bond set that date and time for his appearance. (See Financial 
7

Casualty, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 316 [section 1305 requires the 

defendant to appear at the date and time set in a conforming bail 

bond].)3 The trial court impliedly found Sanchez had a sufficient 

excuse for his failure to appear, presumably because it was only 

six hours after his release. (See People v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra,

108 Cal.App.4th at p. 953 [trial court’s finding of sufficient excuse 

may be implied].) As stated, Allegheny does not contest that 

ruling. But because Sanchez had proper notice of his 

arraignment on February 18, 2021, section 1305.1 did not require 

that he have “actual knowledge of the continued date as a 

prerequisite for a declaration of forfeiture” at the continued 

hearing. (Ranger Ins. Co., at p. 954.) As we explained in Ranger 

Ins. Co.: “In no doubt every case the defendant is aware he or she 

has missed a required court appearance. The onus should thus 

be on the defendant to discover when his or her appearance is 

next required in order to avoid a forfeiture of bail. Section 1305.1 

reflects this view by authorizing the court to declare a forfeiture 

if the defendant fails to appear on the continued date—without 

more.” (Ranger Ins. Co., at p. 954.) Thus, the trial court abused 

its discretion in ruling the Probation Department’s “minimal”

notice to Sanchez of the March 4, 2021 hearing gave him 

sufficient excuse for failing to appear. (See People v. Bankers Ins.

Co., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 479 [“We review a trial court’s 

finding of sufficient excuse for abuse of discretion.”]; People v. 

American Surety Co. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 191, 197 [same].) 

Which also means the trial court erred in denying Allegheny’s 

motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail.

3 The People do not argue the bail bond here was 

nonconforming.
8

The People assert the court’s decision in People v. Ranger 

Ins. Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1301 supports the trial court’s 

(incorrect) statement at the March 4, 2021 hearing that, before 

the court could forfeit bail and issue a bench warrant “as the

consequence for a failing to appear in court per a prior court 

order,” Sanchez had to have notice of “the date, the time, the 

courtroom, and the address . . . of the courthouse where that

courtroom is.” But that case did not concern an appearance

required by a bail bond under section 1269b; it concerned a 

pretrial readiness conference following the defendant’s 

appearance at his arraignment. (Id. at p. 1303.) In that context 

the court stated that a “defendant’s presence is ‘lawfully required’

when there is ‘a specific court order commanding his appearance 

at a date and time certain’ . . . .’” (Id. at p. 1304.) 

The People also cite People v. National Automobile & Cas. 

Ins. Co. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 302. That case, however, did not 

involve an appearance required by a bail bond, nor did it 

prescribe any standard for determining whether notice to the 

defendant was legally sufficient. (See id. at p. 304 [defendant 

failed to appear for a probation and sentencing hearing].)

Another case cited by the People, People v. Bankers Ins. Co., 

supra, 69 Cal.App.5th 473, did concern an appearance based on a 

time and date set in a bail bond (see id. at p. 476) but did not 

involve whether that notice was legally sufficient. 
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to 

vacate the order denying Allegheny’s motion to vacate forfeiture 

and exonerate bail and enter a new order granting the motion. 

Allegheny is to recover its costs on appeal.

SEGAL, J. 

We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

FEUER, J.