Page 1
Court Had One Chance, Only, to Declare That Bail Was Forfeited, Appeals Court Declares
Once Judge Failed to Respond to Defendant’s First Nonappearance, Opinion Says, Jurisdiction Over Bond Was Lost
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that where a judge did not declare bail to be forfeited where the defendant failed to show up the first time, there was no power to make such an order upon a subsequent non-appearance because jurisdiction had been lost..
That holding came in an opinion by Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Div. Six that was filed May 28 and certified for publication yesterday. It reverses a judgment by Santa Barbara District Court Judge Donna D. Geck against American Surety Company.
The opinion also says that it is immaterial that American Surety was appealing from an adverse decision by a civil court judge which sought relief that had twice been denied by a judge in a criminal courtroom.
Bail Posted
That company on July 16, 2021, posted bail in the amount of $100,000 for defendant Marlon Valle-Mejia who was charged with driving under the influence. When he did not show up for his preliminary hearing setting on July 19, 2022, the bail bond was not declared forfeited.
The matter was continued to Aug. 8. On that date, Valle-Mejia was again absent; again, bail was not forfeited, and the matter was put over to Aug. 29.
When, for the third time, there was a non-appearance, bail was ordered forfeited.
American Surety moved to vacate summary judgment against it and to reinstate and exonerate the bail bond. Santa Ana attorney John Rorabaugh pointed to Penal Code §1305(a)(i) which says that a “court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear for any of the following,” one of the circumstances being “(D) Any… occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required.”
American Surety’s Argument
Rorabaugh argued:
“Penal Code section 1305 is a jurisdictional statute….
“Where a defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required pursuant to Penal Code section 1305(a)(1), then the court is required to order bail forfeited, or lose jurisdiction to do so at a later date.”
On March 22, 2024, Geck denied the motion.
Baltodano’s Opinion
Agreeing with American Surety, Baltodano wrote:
“The defendant here knew about the July 19 date but failed to appear. No excuse was offered for his nonappearance. Because the court failed to order forfeiture at that time, American was prejudiced by being denied the opportunity to promptly ‘institute procedures to locate and compel the appearance of the bailee.’…By not forfeiting bail when the defendant first failed to appear without excuse, the court lost jurisdiction to do so later….The court acted without jurisdiction when it subsequently forfeited bail upon the defendant’s failure to appear on August 29.”
That lack of jurisdiction, he declared, defeats any argument that might be made as to issue preclusion based on American Surety having twice previously moved, unsuccessfully, for relief.
Lack of Jurisdiction
“The requirements for issue preclusion are present here,” Baltodano observed, but added:
“The court lost fundamental jurisdiction here….When the defendant failed to appear on July 19 without excuse, the court was required to declare ‘in open court’ that the bond was forfeited….
“Because the order forfeiting the bond was beyond the fundamental jurisdiction of the court and void, the summary judgment against the bond was also void. Issue preclusion therefore did not apply. The court was obligated to set aside the forfeiture and exonerate bail.”
The case is People v. American Surety Company, 2025, S.O.S. 1669.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company