Opinion
F041815.
7-16-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRONTIER PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez, for Defendant and Appellant. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Lawrence A. Perkes, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In accordance with Section 6 of the Standards of Judicial Administration, this appeal is disposed of by memorandum opinion because it raises "no substantial issues of law or fact." (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)
Critical Facts: Frontier Pacific Insurance Company was surety on a bail bond posted for the release of a defendant. The defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea to a felony charge and was re-released on bail pending sentencing. Defendant did not appear for sentencing and bail was forfeited.
Issue: Is bail exonerated if the superior court does not follow the procedures in Penal Code section 1166 when it releases on bail a defendant who pled guilty?
Rule of Law: Section 1166 does not apply to convictions by guilty plea. (People v. Seneca Ins. Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 954.)
Conclusion: Section 1166 was not violated because it does not apply where a defendant enters a guilty plea. Bail was not exonerated. The order of forfeiture stands.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.