A California appeals court has upheld a $100,000 bail bond forfeiture against Bankers Insurance Company, rejecting the surety's bid to escape on jurisdictional grounds.
The First District Court of Appeal, in a decision certified for publication on May 21, 2026, sided with the trial court and against the surety's argument that the judge had lost jurisdiction over the bond by not forfeiting it after the defendant's first failure to appear.
Bankers, through its agent All-Pro Bail Bonds, underwrote the $100,000 bond in February 2023 to release Cristian Omar Cruzpartida, who was facing felony charges. Cruzpartida missed a pretrial conference on April 22, 2024. His lawyer told the judge there was a reason for the absence and asked to approach the bench. After an off-the-record discussion, the trial court said it would take a warrant under submission and not forfeit the bond that day. Defense counsel added that Cruzpartida would be available soon.
Cruzpartida missed the next pretrial conference too. That time, the bond was forfeited.
What followed was a long, scattered fight. Bankers filed four motions to undo the forfeiture under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (d), arguing Cruzpartida could not appear because he had been deported. The trial court found the surety had not established the deportation and denied the motions. Bankers also failed to appear at two of its own hearings on those motions.
Seven months in, the surety switched theories. In February 2025 it argued for the first time under section 1305, subdivision (a) that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the bond at the first nonappearance back in April. That motion was denied as well.
On appeal, Bankers leaned on section 1305.1, which lets a court continue a case without forfeiting the bond if it has reason to believe a sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear. Bankers said the record did not support that finding here.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Writing for the panel, Justice Rodríguez said defense counsel had affirmatively told the judge there was a reason for the absence, conveyed it during an off-the-record discussion, and the judge had stated on the record that, based on the information given at the bench, the bond would not be forfeited that day. That, the court held, was enough.
The opinion sorted prior bail bond cases into two buckets. In one, the record shows a reason for the absence and the court treats it as sufficient – and jurisdiction holds. In the other, no reason is offered and the court continues the matter anyway – and jurisdiction is lost. The Bankers situation, the court said, fit the first bucket.
The panel pointed to People v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 889 as instructive. That case held a trial judge only needs to indicate, on the record or in the minutes, that as a result of an in-camera conference there was reason to believe sufficient excuse existed. The San Mateo trial judge cleared that bar.
The court added an inference of its own, though it said the inference was unnecessary to its conclusion: Cruzpartida's absence related to his ongoing immigration issues. The record contained an April 17 Department of Homeland Security notice of intent to issue a final removal order and an April 24 Immigration and Customs Enforcement notice. The panel noted that Bankers's own first four motions had focused on possible deportation – suggesting the surety itself thought immigration was the explanation.
The judgment was affirmed. The People were awarded costs on appeal.
