PC 1305: Forfeiture of Bail Bond Reversed When DA Indecisive

After a person is arrested, with certain limited exceptions, that person is entitled to bail, which is collateral that the person agrees to post as a promise to appear in court at a later date. 

If the person does not appear as promised, the court declares the bail forfeited and retains the bail amount (Penal Code § 1305(a)). 

If the person makes all appearances as promised, the bail is returned to the person at the end of the case.

In many cases with bail that is more than a person has or can afford to lose, the person can enter into a contract with a bail bond company to post a bond for the bail amount while paying only a percentage of that amount.  However, at the end of the case, the person is not reimbursed the amount paid.  The bail bond company keeps this for bearing the risk of having to forfeit the full bail amount if the person fails to appear in court.

When a person on bail fails to appear, the bail company has an appearance period of 180 days to produce the defendant or the bond will be forfeited, meaning the court will keep the bail amount.  If the defendant appears during the period, the bond forfeiture shall be set aside.  Penal Code § 1305(c). 

In 2018, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint alleging that Geovanni Quijadas Silva committed a lewd act on a child. 

North River Insurance Company, a bail bond company, posted a $100,000 bond as collateral for the release of Silva from jail and his promise to appear in court.

Silva then did not appear for a hearing in court on February 22, 2018.  When he went missing, the trial court forfeited his bond and mailed notice to North River on February 26, 2018, meaning the forfeiture would become final in 180 days, on August 30, 2018 unless the bail company could prompt Silva to come to court or had caught him by then.

North River then began looking for Silva and got two extensions of the forfeiture date.  North River finally found Silva in Mexico, so it moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate its bond to get its money back, or in the alternative, to toll time under Penal Code § 1305(e) or (h).  The motion included a declaration by an investigator who said he found Silva in Mexico on March 15, 2019, detaining him in the presence of a Mexican law enforcement officer, who identified Silva.  The motion included Silva’s Mexican identification card, his fingerprints, photos of Silva and statements from the officer and even Silva.  The motion was filed on the last day of the appearance period for Silva.

The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing it could not make an extradition decision within the remaining one day of the forfeiture period.  The prosecution also argued that the fingerprints were unusable.

North River responded to this opposition by saying due process should allow tolling of the appearance period to allow the prosecution time to decide on extradition.

The trial court judge, however, then denied North River’s Motion to Vacate the Forfeiture and exonerate the bond, finding that the motion was untimely because it was made too late because the prosecution could not make a decision on extradition.  The court then entered a judgement of $100,000 against North River.

North River then appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District.  It is unclear why this appeal was not filed in the Sixth Appellate District. 

The Second Appellate District did not seem amused by the trial court’s ruling, starting with “We review some bail basics.  We italicize the many times the bail statute expressly directs courts to seek justice . . .”

If the defendant flees the state, is detained by the bail agent, identified by local law enforcement, and the prosecution elects not to extradite, the trial court judge shall vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond on terms that are just. Penal Code § 1305(g).  In such cases, the court may toll the appearance period under § 1305(h).

The Second Appellate District then held that the trial court either had to ask the prosecution to announce its extradition decision or had to grant North River’s request to continue the appearance period to give the prosecution enough time to makes its extradition decision.  This interpretation is the reasonable construction of a statute that has the explicit purpose of achieving justice.  The case was then remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.