Opinion
H046209
11-08-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1758176)
Appellant American Surety Company appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside the judgment on a bail bond, vacate the bond forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2017, Luna Bail Bonds, an agent of American Surety Company (American Surety), posted a $35,000 bail bond for the defendant whose bail bond is at issue here. The bail receipt issued by the Santa Clara County jail indicates that the defendant had "bailed on" a charge of Vehicle Code section 23512, subdivision (b). According to the bond, the defendant was ordered to appear in court on March 15.
Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 2017.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. --------
On February 24, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office filed a complaint against the defendant alleging driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (a), count 1); driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or more (§ 23152, subd. (b), count 2); hit and run driving causing property damage (§§ 20002, subd. (a)(1) & (2), count 3); and driving with a license suspended or revoked for a DUI conviction (§ 14601.2, subd. (a), count 4.) The complaint also alleged in counts 1, 2 and 4 that the defendant had suffered previous convictions for driving under the influence in 2012 and 2007. The complaint alleged that all four offenses occurred on or about January 13.
On March 15, the defendant failed to appear for his arraignment, and the trial court ordered the bail bond forfeited. On March 17, the trial court mailed a notice of forfeiture to the surety. The trial court granted several motions to extend the forfeiture period.
On May 31, 2018, the trial court entered judgment against American Surety. On July 31, 2018, American Surety filed a motion to set aside the judgment, vacate the bond forfeiture, and exonerate the bail bond, arguing that the bail amount was unconstitutionally set because it was based only on the bail schedule. On August 22, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on American Surety's motion and denied it. The trial court's ruling in its entirety reads, "So the matter being submitted, the Court is going to deny the motion for relief to set aside the summary judgment and that will stand." American Surety appeals the trial court's August 22 order.
II. DISCUSSION
American Surety argues that the bail bond at issue here was invalid because "bail was set based on an unconstitutional statute and order." American Surety maintains that because the bail bond was "invalid and void" the trial court had no jurisdiction to forfeit bail and enter judgment on the bond. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (review granted May 23, 2018, S247278) (Humphrey), American Surety asserts that in Humphrey the People have conceded in briefing in the California Supreme Court that setting bail without a consideration of a defendant's ability to pay is unconstitutional. American Surety argues that here the defendant's bail amount was unconstitutionally set because it was set solely according to the bail schedule and without consideration of "any balancing of [the defendant's] constitutional interests."
With respect to the record of how bail was set in this case, American Surety states "[t]he trial court has an independent duty to both make the necessary findings to support the bail amount and make an adequate record of the decision. Here, no such record was made. Instead, the Court relied solely on the bail schedule when setting bail in this amount." American Surety does not cite to any documents in the record indicating that the defendant's bail was determined "solely on the bail schedule."
Respondent County of Santa Clara states "it appears that bail was set by the Sheriff's Office." Respondent "draws this conclusion" based solely on the timing of defendant's arrest and release. Respondent notes that defendant's bail amount was "in accord with" the criminal bail schedule for an arrest for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of less than .15% where the driver had suffered two prior violations of driving under the influence within ten years. However, respondent acknowledges the record on appeal does not establish how bail was set in this case.
Respondent argues that American Surety does not have standing to assert a violation of the defendant's due process rights in the setting of bail. Respondent argues that the defendant never challenged "the amount or manner in which his bail was set," and therefore American Surety may not assert his due process rights. Turning to the merits of American Surety's arguments, respondent argues they are unavailing, relying primarily on the authority of People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 891 (Accredited Surety).
The Court of Appeal in Accredited Surety largely rejected the argument advanced by appellant here. The court first determined that a surety, as a party to the bond contract, "has standing to raise claims involving its validity." (Accredited Surety, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 896.) The court nevertheless concluded that the surety waived any procedural irregularities in the bail setting hearing when it assumed its obligations at the time of the execution of the bond. (Id. at p. 898.) In addition, the court reasoned that the statutory procedures for setting bail were not intended to protect the surety, and failure to comply with them "is not among the statutory grounds for exoneration of the bail bond." (Id. at pp. 898-899.) The court held that "[f]ailure to comply with the procedural requirements of Humphrey, requirements intended to safeguard the defendant's constitutional rights, did not render the subsequently issued bond void." (Id. at p. 899.)
American Surety in its briefing in this court contends that Accredited Surety was wrongly decided. Appellant argues that none of the cases discussed in the decision examined the legal effect of an unconstitutional order on a subsequent bail bond and therefore did not support the court's holding.
While a reviewing court ordinarily assesses the trial court's denial of a motion to set aside an order of forfeiture under an abuse of discretion standard (People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 127, 134), here the "evidence before the appellate court is not in dispute," and we therefore employ de novo review. (People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 915, 919.) The party challenging the order carries the burden of establishing error. (Financial Casualty, at p. 134.)
American Surety's argument depends on its contention that the defendant's bail was set according to the bail schedule, and the trial court did not engage in any "balancing" of the defendant's constitutional interests when setting bail. However, the record on appeal does not indicate how defendant's bail was set. Under these circumstances, we may not presume error. " '[E]very presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and any condition of facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed rather than one which will defeat it [citation], and where the record is silent as to what was done it will be presumed in favor of the judgment that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' " (People v. Allegheny Casualty Co. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 704, 716.)
Even if we were to assume that the amount of defendant's bail was set solely according to the bail schedule, we would not conclude that the bail bond contract into which American Surety subsequently entered was therefore void. We assume without deciding that a surety has standing to challenge the validity of a bail bond where the legality of the bail bond contract is at issue. (See Accredited Surety, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 896.) We agree with the conclusion of the court in Accredited Surety that failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Humphrey does not void a subsequent bail bond contract. (Id. at p. 899.) We reject appellant's contention that Accredited Surety was wrongly decided. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying American Surety's motion to set aside the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying the motion to set aside the judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278.)
/s/_________
DANNER, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
GREENWOOD, P.J. /s/_________
GROVER, J.