1

Filed 12/10/19; Certified for publication 12/17/19 (order attached) 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

COUNTY OF YOLO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

C087140

(Super. Ct. No. CV1849)

Appellant, Yolo County (County), appeals from an order granting respondent’s, 

American Surety Company (American Surety), motion to set aside the summary 

judgment and exonerate bail. The County argues Department 8 correctly exercised its 

discretion under Penal Code section 1305.1 finding, based on counsel’s representations, 

there might be sufficient excuse for defendant’s failure to appear (statutory section 

references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated). Thus, the trial court 

retained jurisdiction to declare the bond forfeited when defendant failed to appear two 
2

weeks later. Accordingly, the County argues Department 13 erred in finding the trial 

court (Department 8) lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the bond.

We find Department 13 erred in setting aside the summary judgment. Department 

8 did not abuse its discretion under section 1305.1 to continue the case for a reasonable 

period of time to enable defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail. We 

reverse the order and reinstate the summary judgment. The County is to recover its costs 

on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The People charged defendant Francisco Estrella with numerous felony offenses, 

including assault with a deadly weapon and shooting at an inhabited dwelling with gang 

and firearm use enhancements. The trial court set bail at $190,000. On March 25, 2016, 

American Surety, through its agent Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, posted bond for Estrella’s 

release. Between March 25, 2016 and August 31, 2016, Estrella appeared at four 

hearings, April 11, May 18, June 9, and August 17. At the August 17 hearing, the matter 

was ordered continued to August 31 for a section 995 motion and trial setting conference. 

Defendant was not present in court on the morning of August 31. The acting 

public defender, Monica Brushia, was unsure why defendant was not in court, and 

indicated she thought it was a misunderstanding because defendant had appeared at all 

his other hearings. Estrella’s regular public defender, Martha Sequeira, was in a different 

department on another matter and did not have defendant’s telephone number with her, so 

Department 8 put the matter over to the afternoon to allow Sequeira to try to contact 

Estrella. 

Defendant was not present at the continued afternoon hearing. Sequeira informed 

the court she did not know why defendant was not in court, “but it’s not like him to not 

be here because he’s made every court appearance. We have a really good working 

relationship and I just talked to his sister the day before yesterday, . . . not today’s court 
3

date, but his case in general. I have constant communications with him and his entire 

family. He’s been working consistently for the last year and a half that I’ve been 

representing him on different matters. So I don’t know why, but it’s unlike him not to be 

present.” She also indicated that she had not been the attorney in court with Estrella at 

the prior hearing. She remained certain his failure to appear could not “be because he’s 

willfully trying to evade the process of the court. It has to be something that happened 

between him and the attorney in my office. And when I went to go talk to Mr. Borruso 

[the acting public defender at that hearing] this morning, who was here the time before 

and stood in for me, he didn’t remember what they talked about. [¶] So I don’t know. 

And I tried to make phone calls but his phone goes directly to voicemail, which is 

consistent with when he’s at work. He doesn’t answer the phone.” The People did not 

object to the trial court finding sufficient excuse. Based on counsel’s representations, 

Department 8 found sufficient cause to not forfeit the bond and set the matter for hearing 

on September 14, 2016, in Department 13. Defendant failed to appear at the 

September 14 hearing and the trial court ordered the bond forfeited. 

After American Surety’s efforts to return defendant to court and exonerate bail 

were unsuccessful, the trial court entered summary judgment. American Surety filed a 

motion in Department 13 to set aside the summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and 

exonerate bail. American Surety argued the court lost jurisdiction over the bond when it 

did not declare an immediate forfeiture of the bond when Estrella did not appear in court 

on August 31, 2016. The County opposed the motion, arguing that under section 1305.1, 

Department 8 had a rational basis to find there might be a sufficient excuse for Estrella’s 

failure to appear. Department 13 granted American Surety’s motion stating, “The Court 

isn’t satisfied with the decision this Court made, but it may have been in error and I grant 

the motion.” 
4

DISCUSSION

The County contends Department 13 erred in granting American Surety’s motion 

to set aside the summary judgment and exonerate bail. The County argues Department 8 

correctly exercised its discretion under section 1305.1, and defense counsel’s 

representations to the court were a rational basis on which Department 8 could find there 

might be sufficient excuse for defendant’s failure to appear. Accordingly, the County 

argues Department 13 erred in finding the court did not have jurisdiction to declare the 

bond forfeited when defendant failed to appear two weeks later. 

If a criminal defendant released on bail fails to appear at a lawfully required 

hearing, without sufficient excuse, the trial court must declare bail forfeited. (§ 1305, 

subd. (a)(1).) “If the court has no information that a sufficient excuse may exist so as to 

justify a continuance pursuant to section 1305.1, the court must declare a forfeiture. If 

the court fails to do so, it loses jurisdiction and the bond is exonerated by operation of 

law. [Citations.] The court does not have jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture later. 

[Citation.]” (People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 45, 

48–49.) There is a limited exception to this rule under section 1305.1, if “the court has 

reason to believe that [a] sufficient excuse may exist . . . , [it] may continue the case for a 

[reasonable] period . . . to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of 

[the bond].” (§ 1305.1.) “Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and 

retain its jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture, as long as it has reason to believe that a 

sufficient excuse exists for the defendant’s nonappearance. [Citation.]” (People v. 

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 127, 134 (Financial Casualty & 

Surety, Inc.).) 

Generally, we review an order resolving a motion to vacate a bond forfeiture under 

an abuse of discretion standard, “subject to constraints imposed by the bail statutory 

scheme.” (County of Orange v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1488, 
5

1491-1492.) “As the Supreme Court has noted, however, ‘[t]he abuse of discretion 

standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect 

of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for 

substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of 

the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’ ” (County of Los 

Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 538, 543.) “[W]here, as 

here, the facts are uncontested, and the issue concerns a pure question of law, we review 

the decision de novo.” (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2018) 

26 Cal.App.5th 913, 917; People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 915, 

919 (Amwest Surety Ins.).) Moreover “ ‘ [w]hen a statute requires a court to exercise its 

jurisdiction in a particular manner, to follow a particular procedure, or to act subject to 

certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” 

(County of Orange v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1491–

1492; County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty Group, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at

p. 543.) Department 13’s ruling on the motion to discharge the forfeiture, set aside the 

summary judgment and exonerate bail, was essentially a jurisdictional question. (Amwest 

Surety Ins., at p. 920.) “Because the relevant facts are undisputed and only legal issues 

are involved, we conduct an independent review.” (County of Los Angeles v. Financial 

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

The determination of whether an excuse for nonappearance is sufficient is decided 

on a case-by-case basis. (Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 135.) Importantly, “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.” (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2003) 

108 Cal.App.4th 945, 953.) Section 1305.1 “requires the court [to] only have ‘reason to 

believe that sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear.’ ” (Ibid., fn. omitted, 

quoting § 1305.1.) Defendant’s past history of making court appearances “over a several 
6

month period provided a ‘rational basis’ for believing there might be a sufficient excuse 

for the defendant’s absence.” (Ibid.) So, too, does the possibility that there was a 

misunderstanding or miscommunication between defendant and counsel about the need to 

appear at the hearing. (Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., at pp. 131, 136 [court retained 

jurisdiction to declare forfeiture when counsel believed defendant may have been 

confused about the court dates]; People v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co. (2000) 

83 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1292-1293 [misunderstanding or miscommunication about required 

attendance in court, combined with history of appearances, sufficient excuse to retain 

jurisdiction]; People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 820, 822, 824, 825 

[sister’s representation to counsel that defendant did not think he had to appear was 

sufficient to retain jurisdiction].) And, the possible excuse proffered for defendant’s 

nonappearance need not be a certainty. (Amwest Surety Ins., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 925-926 [no loss of jurisdiction to declare forfeiture based on counsel’s 

representation “ ‘there may be an emergency’ ”]; Ranger, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 953 [counsel’s statement that he had called every number he knew and was concerned 

“something must have happened” to defendant combined with appearance history was 

sufficient to continue jurisdiction].) 

Here defense counsel had been representing defendant for over a year and a half. 

She had a good working relationship with him and his family, and had discussed the case 

with his sister shortly before the hearing. Although she could not reach him by phone on 

the day of the hearing, that inability was consistent with his practice of turning off his 

phone when he was working. During her representation of him for over a year and a half, 

defendant had a history of “mak[ing] every court appearance.” Because she had not been 

at the prior hearing, she believed there must have been some misunderstanding between 

defendant and Borruso, who had stood in for her at the prior hearing. Counsel’s 

representations provided a rational basis for Department 8 to find there might be 

sufficient excuse for defendant’s nonappearance. Department 8’s acceptance of 
7

counsel’s representations is consistent with the practice of trial courts that “have 

cooperated with defense counsels’ requests and have liberally relied on their 

representations.” (People v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 824.) 

Accordingly, Department 13 erred in granting the motion to vacate the summary 

judgment on the basis that Department 8 lacked jurisdiction to enter summary judgment 

at the time that it did.

DISPOSITION

The order granting the motion to discharge the forfeiture, set aside the summary 

judgment and exonerate bail is reversed and the summary judgment and costs order are 

reinstated, with such further proceedings to take place as necessary to adjudicate a further 

award of costs under section 1305.3. The County is to recover costs on appeal. 

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 

BUTZ, J.

 

DUARTE, J.
1

Filed 12/17/19

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

COUNTY OF YOLO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

C087140

(Super. Ct. No. CV1849)

ORDER CERTIFYING 

OPINION FOR 

PUBLICATION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Paul K. 

Richardson, J. Reversed. 

Philip J. Pogledich, County Counsel, Julie Barga and Eric May, Senior Deputies

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of John Rorabaugh, John Mark Rorabaugh and Crystal L. Rorabaugh 

for Defendant and Respondent. 
2

THE COURT:

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on December 10, 2019, was not 

certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears that the 

opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.

BY THE COURT:

 , 

HULL, Acting P. J.

 

BUTZ, J.

 

DUARTE, J.