P v. Safety Nat'l Casualty (Cal. Supreme Court): Bond Forfeiture and PC977(b).

Safety National Casualty (SNC) is an insurance company.  It posted a bail bond for one Mr. Bent, who was facing felony DUI charges.  At Mr. Bent's arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty, waived time, and was given a next court date for a pretrial (settlement) conference.

Bent did not show at the pretrial conference.  The trial court ordered SNC's bond forfeited.  SNC opposed the forfeiture on the basis that the pretrial conference was not a hearing for which the bond could be forfeited under PC 1305 upon Bent's failure to appear.  The trial court refused to set aside the forfeiture.  The District Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with SNC that the missed hearing was not one for which the bond could be forfeited under PC 1305.  The California Supreme Court reverses the District Court, finding the bond was properly forfeited. 

This is a case requiring the interpretation of two statutes, PC 1305 and PC 977.  The pertinent portions of these statutes are:

1305 (a) 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: (1) Arraignment. (2) Trial. (3) Judgment. (4) Any other occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant’s presence in court is lawfully required. . . .

977(b)(1) In all cases in which a felony is charged, the accused shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of plea, during the preliminary hearing, during those portions of the trial when evidence is taken before the trier of fact, and at the time of the imposition of sentence. The accused shall be personally present at all other proceedings unless he or she shall, with leave of court, execute in open court, a written waiver of his or her right to be personally present . . . .

The issues is whether the italicized language in 1305(a) encompasses the italicized language in 977(b), to wit, does the catch-all provision in 977, which requires the defendant to be present at "all other proceedings" absent an executed waiver, constitute a "lawful requirement" within PC 1305.  The Supreme Court holds that it does.

Although as a matter of plain meaning, this appears an easy case, it is made a little more difficult by case law dealing with the inverse situation, where defendants were prohibited from attending certain proceedings they argued they were entitled to attend (side bar conferences and chambers conferences).  Those cases dealt with the Constitutional right of a defendant to be present as distinguished from a statutory obligation to be present.  Once that delineation is made, the analysis is clearer, leading to the holding here that 977(b) imposes a lawful requirement upon a felony defendant to attend all proceedings unless he executes a valid written waiver in open court.