Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate No. 0805070361, Annemarie G. Pace, Judge.
Richard M. Ewaniszyk, for Petitioner Paul Mencos.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Grover D. Merritt, Lead Deputy District Attorney, and Paul W. Feldman, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Penal Code section 1305 requires a court to exonerate a bond if no complaint has been filed within 15 days after a defendant is arraigned. The reason for this statute was to allow the People more time to file a complaint and to prevent the exact unfair situation in which petitioner finds himself. (See People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 23, 29.)
Similarly, Penal Code section 1303 provides that if an action is dismissed, the bond is not exonerated if a new complaint is filed within 15 days, thus serving the same purpose of allowing the defendant to retain his bail bond without the necessity of paying a new premium. It is also to be noted that Penal Code section 1304 provides for an automatic exoneration of a bond upon lapse of time while Penal Code section 1300 provides for exoneration in specified circumstances at the request of the bail; neither statute applies here.
No statute authorizes the court to exonerate a bond simply because the People have not filed a complaint by the date of arraignment and we agree with the People’s concession that the court’s order doing so was void. We also agree that in this matter, the appropriate relief will be to direct the trial court to vacate its order exonerating petitioner’s bond as of the date of June 16, 2008. As we cannot predict the course of subsequent proceedings, if any, we must limit our directions in that respect. However, we express confidence that in the future, the trial court and the judges of that court will give appropriate consideration to the effect of premature exoneration on the individual defendant and will be cognizant of the legislative attempts to ensure fair treatment.
We decline to treat the petition as one either seeking or justifying more general relief. We note that it was filed with reference to the specific criminal action in which petitioner was involved and no civil filing fee was paid. Accordingly, we grant relief solely to this petitioner, Paul Mencos.
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its order exonerating petitioner’s bond as of June 16, 2008, and to proceed in the matter in accordance with the statutes and law set forth above.
Petitioner is DIRECTED to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
This order shall be final forthwith.
We concur: McKINSTER, J. GAUT, J.