Posted 1/17/2016

In People v. North River Insurance Co., Case No. B260899 (Cal.App. January 7, 2016) the defendant appeared for arraignment and requested a continuance to retain private counsel.  The court granted the continuance and directed the defendant to appear on the new date.  He failed to appear, and the court forfeited the bond.  After several continuances of the appearance period, the court entered summary judgment and the surety appealed on the grounds that the continuance was improperly granted.  The Court dismissed the appeal because the surety had consented to entry of summary judgment with certain exceptions embodied in Penal Code §§1305 and 1306.  Since the basis for the appeal – the continuance – was not related to the trial court’s compliance with §§1305 and 1306, “this appeal does not fit within the limited exception to the general rule that a summary judgment on a bail bond is not appealable.”  The Court also noted that even if the appeal had been proper the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the continuance.  [Not published].

In State v. Lovett, Case No. 15-CA-28, 2015 Ohio 5509 (Ohio App. December 30, 2015) the defendant was incarcerated in another county on his trial date of February 4.  After he failed to appear, the trial court set a bond forfeiture hearing for March 6 and at the hearing forfeited the bond without giving the surety the notice and show cause hearing required by R.C. 2937.35(C).  The surety appealed the judgment, and the Court reversed and remanded the case based on the failure to schedule and hold the required show cause hearing.  The Court thought that the surety had not provided a sufficient record to review the merits of the surety’s request to be discharged from the bond and left that issue to be decided by the trial court after remand.