Opinion
C088331
05-26-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 62136103)
After the trial court set bail in the amount of $110,000 and Biker Bail Bonds, as an agent for American Surety Company (American Surety), posted a bail bond in that amount, defendant Darnell Erby failed to appear at a required hearing. The trial court ordered bail forfeited, notified Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety of the forfeiture, and subsequently entered summary judgment against Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety, directing that the People recover from Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety the sum of $110,000. American Surety ultimately moved to set aside the summary judgment, to discharge the forfeiture, and to exonerate bail, but the trial court denied the motion.
American Surety now contends that because the trial court failed to consider Erby's ability to pay in setting bail, the bail setting was unconstitutional, thereby rendering the bail bond contract void. Because the reasoning of this court's decision in People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 891 (Accredited) militates against American Surety's arguments, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
As relevant to the contentions in this case, the People charged Darnell Erby with various felony offenses and the trial court set bail at $225,000. Defense counsel subsequently asked the trial court to reduce the bail amount and to place Erby on electronic monitoring; the trial court reduced bail to $100,000 but denied the request for electronic monitoring. However, when Erby failed to appear for a court hearing, the trial court forfeited the bail and issued a bench warrant in the amount of $110,000.
Approximately three weeks later, Erby appeared in court in a return on the bench warrant, and the trial court set bail at $110,000. Erby made a motion to reduce bail to under $80,000, arguing he had missed the prior court hearing because he was temporarily detained in another county, his offense was not the most serious of violations, and his prior strike was old. He also asked the trial court to consider him for an ankle monitor. The People countered that bail should be increased to $340,000, the amount indicated in the bail schedule given Erby's prior convictions. The trial court concluded that although bail had previously been set at $100,000, it was appropriate to increase it to $110,000 because in the interim, Erby had been remanded into custody in Sacramento County.
Biker Bail Bonds, as an agent for American Surety, posted bond No. AS#115756 in the amount of $110,000. Approximately four months later, Erby failed to appear at a required hearing. The trial court ordered bail forfeited, notified Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety of the forfeiture, and subsequently entered summary judgment against Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety, directing that the People recover from Biker Bail Bonds and American Surety the sum of $110,000.
American Surety moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, but the trial court denied the motion. American Surety then moved to set aside the summary judgment, to discharge the forfeiture, and to exonerate bail, arguing that because the trial court did not consider Erby's ability to pay when it set bail, the bail setting was unconstitutional and hence American Surety could not be held responsible. The trial court denied the motion, concluding American Surety lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the bail setting, the authority cited by American Surety was inapposite, and bail was set constitutionally and in an appropriate amount.
DISCUSSION
American Surety contends that because the trial court failed to consider Erby's ability to pay in setting bail, the bail setting was unconstitutional, thereby rendering the bail bond contract void. American Surety relies in part on In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, review granted May 23, 2018, S247278 (Humphrey), which held that it violates a defendant's due process rights to make pretrial detention determinations without individualized consideration of the defendant's circumstances, including the defendant's ability to pay. (Id. at p. 1041.)
This court's prior decision in Accredited militates against American Surety's arguments. This court held that although a surety has standing to assert the validity of its bail bond contract (Accredited, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 896-897), nothing in Humphrey or the rules regarding the setting of bail relieves the surety of its obligations under the bond once it has been executed, and prior procedural irregularities are waived by the surety when it assumes its obligations at the time of execution of the bond. (Accredited, at p. 898.)
American Surety appears to suggest that we should deviate from this court's prior decision in Accredited, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th 891. We decline the invitation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.