County of Yolo v. American Surety Co.
Annotate this CaseAppellant, Yolo County (County), appealed an order granting respondent’s, American Surety Company, motion to set aside the summary judgment and exonerate bail. The State 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 and August 31, Estrella appeared at four hearings, April 11, May 18, June 9, and August 17. Defendant was not present in court on the morning of August 31. The acting public defender 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. The State did not object to the trial court finding sufficient excuse; Department 8 found sufficient cause to not forfeit the bond and set the matter for hearing on September 14 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. The County argued 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. Thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to declare the bond forfeited when defendant failed to appear two weeks later. Accordingly, the County argues Department 13 erred in finding the trial court (Department 8) lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the bond. The Court of Appeal found Department 13 erred in setting aside the summary judgment. Department 8 did not abuse its discretion under Penal Code section 1305.1 to continue the case for a reasonable period of time to enable defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail. The Court reversed the order and reinstated the summary judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.