Filed 12/8/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F080749 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1489891) v. THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna F. Reeves, Judge. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Bad Boys Bail Bonds, acting as the agent for The North River Insurance Company (collectively, Surety) posted a $30,000 bail bond for the release of criminal defendant Gabriel Fontes Rivadeneyra from custody. When Gabriel failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, the trial court ordered bail forfeited and later entered summary judgment on the bond. In this appeal, Surety contends the trial court erred in denying its motion to vacate the void summary judgment. Surety’s claim of reversible error contains multiple steps. First, Surety makes the factual assertion that Gabriel did not appear at the hearing because his visa expired and he returned to Mexico to get it renewed, rather than staying in the United States and violating federal law. Second, under Surety’s view of Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a),1 these facts constitute a “sufficient excuse” for Gabriel’s nonappearance. Third, based on the Supreme Court’s description of “the lack of a sufficient excuse for the defendant’s nonappearance” as one of the two “jurisdictional prerequisites” that “must be met before the trial court may declare a forfeiture” of bail (People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 710, italics added (Safety National)), Surety contends the trial court lacked the jurisdiction necessary to validly declare the bail bond forfeited. Fourth, Surety contends this lack of jurisdiction was an absence of “fundamental” jurisdiction. Fifth, the absence of fundamental jurisdiction caused the order declaring bail forfeited to be void and, thus, the later entered summary judgment also was void, not merely voidable. Sixth, because the summary judgment was void, it can be collaterally attacked at any time and this court’s earlier affirmance of the summary judgment did not render it unassailable. (See People v. The North River Insurance Company (July 24, 2019, F075353) [nonpub. opn. affirming summary judgment].) For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that (1) Gabriel had a “sufficient excuse” for not appearing at the scheduled hearing (§ 1305, subd. (a)) and (2) 1 All unlabeled references to a statutory provision are to the Penal Code. 2 the trial court lacked what our Supreme Court described as a “jurisdictional prerequisite” to declaring a forfeiture of bail. (Safety National, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 710.) We publish this opinion to set forth our interpretation of what the Supreme Court meant when it referred to the absence of a sufficient excuse as a jurisdictional prerequisite. The modifier “jurisdictional” might have referred to jurisdiction in a “fundamental” sense. (See People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660–663 (American ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals