Opinion
F074770
05-22-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant; BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant, Real Party in Interest and Appellants. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 1492244)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Nancy Ashley, Judge. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendant, Real Party in Interest and Appellants. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Robert J. Taro, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Ellison, J.†
-ooOoo-
In this bail forfeiture action, appellant, The North River Insurance Company (North River), moved to exonerate the bond on the ground that the defendant was in custody in another county and a hold had been placed on the defendant in the underlying case. The trial court exonerated the bond but conditioned the exoneration on North River paying the actual costs of returning the defendant to custody from Folsom State Prison pursuant to Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (b).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
North River contends the award of transportation costs was improper because those costs were incurred after the defendant was returned to custody, i.e., after the hold was placed on him. North River further argues the trial court should not have awarded costs "in the interest of justice."
The trial court did not err when it ordered a conditional exoneration. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The Stanislaus County District Attorney charged the defendant, Kyle Davis, with two felony counts. The charges also included a prior "strike" conviction and two prior prison terms. The trial court set bail at $100,000.
In September 2015, Bad Boys Bail Bonds, as the agent for North River, posted a $100,000 bond for the defendant's release. The terms of the bond provided that, if the defendant failed to appear as required, judgment may be entered summarily against North River as provided by sections 1305 and 1306.
While the defendant appeared as required multiple times, he failed to appear on January 22, 2016. Accordingly, the trial court declared the bond forfeited and issued a bench warrant for the defendant.
On March 2, 2016, Gary Martinez, an investigator for the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office, filed a declaration stating that the defendant was in custody at the San Joaquin County jail on their local charges. Martinez further stated that the defendant was also in custody on the bench warrant issued in conjunction with the bail bond forfeiture. Martinez described a phone conversation he had with North River's attorney where he informed the attorney that he estimated the section 1306, subdivision (b), costs to return the defendant to Stanislaus County would be approximately $279. In an e-mail to North River's attorney, attached as an exhibit to his declaration, Martinez explained that it was unknown when the defendant would be finished with his local San Joaquin County charges and be available for transport back to Stanislaus County. Martinez invited North River's attorney to contact county counsel to "enter into a 'stipulated' agreement."
On July 22, 2016, North River filed a motion to exonerate the bond under section 1305, subdivision (c)(3). North River based the motion on the Modesto Police Department having placed a warrant hold on the defendant in the underlying case within the exoneration period while the defendant was in custody on other charges in San Joaquin County. In a supplemental declaration attached to the motion, an investigator stated that the defendant was currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation.
On July 26, 2016, Martinez filed a new declaration withdrawing his previously filed cost estimate. Martinez explained that the earlier costs were an estimate and that, contrary to his understanding, North River had not paid them in advance to close the bail forfeiture matter. Martinez stated that the defendant was in the custody of Folsom State Prison and would remain there until August 30, 2016. Martinez estimated the cost of returning the defendant to Stanislaus County on this bail bond forfeiture would be approximately $815.
Following a hearing on North River's motion, the trial court ordered the bond conditionally exonerated and imposed actual costs of $897.19 for transporting the defendant to Stanislaus County.
DISCUSSION
A bail bond is a contract between the court and a surety whereby the surety acts as a guarantor of the defendant's appearance in court under the risk of forfeiture of the bond. (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657.) Thus, the object of a bail bond is to insure the attendance of the accused and his or her obedience to the orders and judgment of the court. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there should be no element of revenue to the state nor punishment of the surety. (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1308 (Ranger Ins. Co.).)
Here, the bail bond provides that, if the court orders the forfeiture of the bond, North River agrees that judgment may be summarily made and entered for the amount of its undertaking as provided by sections 1305 and 1306. Section 1306, subdivision (a), states that such a judgment shall be the amount of the bond plus costs. Thus, by the terms of the bond, North River agreed to pay the costs associated with a forfeiture proceeding.
Regarding what costs the court must impose in connection with granting relief from forfeiture, section 1306, subdivision (b), provides, in part:
"If a court grants relief from bail forfeiture, it shall impose a monetary payment as a condition of relief to compensate the people for the costs of returning a defendant to custody pursuant to Section 1305, except for cases where the court determines that in the best interest of justice no costs should be imposed. The amount imposed shall reflect the actual costs of returning the defendant to custody."
Thus, under section 1306, subdivision (b), trial courts are limited to the actual cost of returning the defendant to custody. Accordingly, the court does not have jurisdiction under the statute to impose an assessment representing any costs associated with caring for a defendant after his or her return to custody. (Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 1308.)
Section 1305, subdivision (c)(3), requires the trial court to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate the bail if, "outside the county where the case is located, the defendant is surrendered to custody by the bail or is arrested in the underlying case within the 180-day period." An "'arrest' includes a hold placed on the defendant in the underlying case while he or she is in custody on other charges." (§ 1305, subd. (i).)
Based on section 1305, subdivisions (c)(3) and (i), North River argues the defendant was returned to custody in the underlying case when the bench warrant hold was placed on him while he was in custody in the San Joaquin County jail. Therefore, North River asserts, the costs of returning the defendant to Stanislaus County from Folsom State Prison were post-custody costs and therefore not properly imposed under section 1306, subdivision (b).
However, section 1305, subdivision (c)(3), merely sets forth one of the conditions upon which bail is to be exonerated. It requires the court to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail if a hold is placed on the defendant while in custody outside the county during the exoneration period. It does not pertain to returning the defendant to the custody of the court that declared the forfeiture or the costs associated with such return.
The bond insures the defendant's appearance in the court that authorized the bail. Thus, the defendant must be returned to the custody of that court if relief from forfeiture is granted pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (c)(3). Under section 1306, subdivision (b), the surety must pay the actual costs of returning the defendant to the physical custody of the court that declared the forfeiture. Any other interpretation would frustrate the purpose of reimbursing the county for its actual costs associated with a bond forfeiture proceeding. (§ 1306, subd. (a).) Such reimbursement is not revenue to the county. Accordingly, the trial court properly imposed the costs of returning the defendant to Stanislaus County from Folsom State Prison on North River.
North River further argues the court should not have imposed costs because the People dishonored the bench warrant by prosecuting the defendant in San Joaquin County before returning him to Stanislaus County. Contrary to North River's position, the bench warrant was honored when a hold was placed, and remained, on defendant.
Further, North River could have filed its motion to exonerate the bail in March 2016. Instead, North River waited until July 22, 2016, shortly before the exoneration period expired, to file its motion. Moreover, in March 2016, the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office invited North River to enter into an agreement with the county to settle the matter for less than $300. This was before the defendant was transported to Folsom. However, North River declined to do so. Thus, North River cannot reasonably blame the increased transportation costs on the People.
Finally, North River asserts the court should not have imposed the transportation costs "in the best interest of justice" because, by keeping the defendant in San Joaquin County, the People prevented North River's performance under the bond. (§ 1306, subd. (b).) However, as discussed above, North River had the opportunity to minimize its exposure and chose not to do so. Further, North River decided to post the bond for a recidivist defendant and thus took the risk that this defendant would engage in criminal conduct in another jurisdiction. (Continental Cas. Co. v. State of California (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 259, 262.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.
† Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.