BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1529
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 20, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1529 (Dickinson) - As Introduced: January 23, 2012
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT : TRIAL COURTS: RESTRUCTURING AND BAIL FORFEITURE
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED AS TO WHICH TRIBUNALS
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER BAIL FORFEITURE APPEALS AND WHICH HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER WRITS RELATED TO SMALL CLAIMS CASES AFTER
TRIAL COURT UNIFICATION?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, following the recommendations of
the California Law Revision Commission, enacts assorted
non-controversial and largely technical clarifications,
including some pertaining to jurisdictional issues that have
arisen as a result of trial court restructuring.
SUMMARY : Makes non-controversial revisions to reflect trial
court restructuring and clarifies the law to eliminate confusion
over jurisdictional issues that have emerged in the wake of
trial court unification. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes obsolete references to municipal courts, judicial
districts, counties, and county entities in order to reflect
the shift of responsibilities to the state trial courts
resulting from court restructuring.
2)Revises provisions related to the compensation of expert
witnesses, interpreters, and translators to reflect the
transition from county to state funding of trial court
operations.
3)Clarifies which tribunal has jurisdiction of a bail forfeiture
appeal after trial court unification.
4)Clarifies which tribunal has jurisdiction of a writ petition
AB 1529
Page 2
relating to a small claims case after trial court unification.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the state bears sole responsibility for the
funding of court operations. (Gov't Code Section 77200.)
2)Provides that the state court system, rather than the
counties, is responsible for employment and management of
trial court personnel. (Gov't Code Sections 71615(c)(5),
71601(l), 71645(a).)
3)Requires that the California Law Revision Commission identify
provisions of law which are rendered obsolete by trial court
restructuring and report its recommendations to the
Legislature, including any proposed statutory changes. (Gov't
Code Section 71674.)
4)Implements the first four parts and most of the fifth part of
the CLRC's recommendations in Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial
Court Restructuring . (See SB 1316, 2002 Stat. Ch. 784; SB 79,
2003 Stat. Ch. 149; SB 649, 2007 Stat. Ch. 149; SB 1182, 2008
Stat. Ch. 56; AB 2767, 2010 Stat. Ch. 212.)
5)Provides that an order related to bail forfeiture may be
appealed, but does not specify "the proper appellate path of
bail bond forfeiture proceedings" in the wake of trial court
restructuring. (Cal. L. Revision Comm'n, Revised
Recommendation, Trial Court Restructuring: Appellate
Jurisdiction of Bail Forfeiture , at 1 (Apr. 2011) (quoting
People v. Ranger Ins. Co. , (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) No. H030919,
2007 WL 2175059, at *2 n.5 (unpublished decision)).)
6)Provides that "Ýt]he Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior
courts, and their judges . . . . have original jurisdiction in
proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of
mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition." (Cal. Const. art. VI,
§10.)
COMMENTS : As this Committee knows well, the state's trial court
system was significantly restructured in the late 1990's,
rendering hundreds of statutes obsolete, in whole or in part.
The Legislature therefore prudently directed the California Law
Revision Commission (CLRC) to make recommendations regarding the
repeal of statutes made obsolete by trial court restructuring.
AB 1529
Page 3
Given the volume of statutes affected, the Commission's work in
this regard has been ongoing.
This bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the CLRC,
all non-controversial, by amending various code sections to
reflect the changes brought about by trial court restructuring.
The revisions would reflect the consequences of restructuring by
deleting obsolete language referencing judicial districts,
municipal courts, and county responsibility for court funding
and personnel management. (See Trial Court Restructuring:
Rights and Responsibilities of the County as Compared to the
Superior Court (Part 1) , 39 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports 157,
164-75 (Dec. 2010).) The CLRC notes that these revisions "would
help avoid confusion and prevent disputes, thereby reducing
litigation expenses and conserving judicial resources." ( Id. at
176.)
Revisions to Evidence Code to Reflect State Funding of Court
Operations . Under the Trial Court Funding Act, the state courts
bear responsibility for funding all court operations. The
phrase "court operations" includes experts appointed for the
court's needs in juvenile and criminal actions and medical
experts appointed for the court's needs in civil actions. (See
Cal. L. Revision Comm'n, Excerpts from Recommendation on
Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring: Part 5 , at
2 (Dec. 2009).) In addition, witness interpreters appointed for
the court's needs in criminal and juvenile cases fall under the
category of "court operations." However, the current versions
of Sections 731 and 752 of the Evidence Code do not reflect the
state's responsibility for payment of such services. This bill
would amend those portions of the Evidence Code in order to
implement the Trial Court Funding Act's mandate and amend
section 753 of the Evidence Code to direct state payment for
document translators in juvenile and criminal cases, given that
translators play virtually the same function as witness
interpreters. ( Id. )
Revisions to Remedy Confusion Regarding Jurisdiction over Bail
Forfeiture Appeals . Prior to trial court unification,
jurisdiction of a bail forfeiture appeal was based upon the
court that ordered the forfeiture. (Cal. L. Revision Comm'n,
Pre-Print Revised Recommendation, Trial Court Restructuring:
Appellate Jurisdiction of Bail Forfeiture , at 3-4 (Apr. 2011).)
Appeals from municipal court forfeiture orders went to the
appellate department of the superior court, while superior court
AB 1529
Page 4
orders were appealed to the court of appeal. ( Id. at 4.) The
CLRC notes that "Ýs]ince the trial courts consolidated into a
unified superior court, there is some confusion over when a bail
forfeiture appeal belongs in the appellate division of the
superior court, and when such an appeal belongs in the court of
appeal." ( Id. ) As a result of this confusion, courts have
applied different standards in determining jurisdiction over
bail forfeiture appeals.
In 2008, the CLRC presented an initial recommendation to
preserve the pre-unification process for appeals related to bail
forfeiture. (See Trial Court Restructuring: Appellate
Jurisdiction of Bail Forfeiture , 37 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n
Reports 149, 155 (2007).) AB 2166 of 2008 (Tran) was introduced
for the purpose of implementing the CLRC's initial
recommendation. However, several parties from the bail bonds
community opposed the bill, noting that parties to bail
forfeiture appeals in many cases with an amount in controversy
over $25,000 would have been required to appeal to the appellate
division of the superior court. (See AB 2166, Bill Analysis,
Assembly Comm. on Public Safety, at pg. I to pg. K (Apr. 29,
2008).)
In 2011, the CLRC presented a revised recommendation which this
bill seeks to implement that determines jurisdiction over bail
forfeiture appeals based upon the amount in controversy,
ensuring that cases where more than $25,000 is at stake are
afforded the protections associated with appeal to the court of
appeal. (See Revised Pre-Print Recommendation, supra , at 5.)
Golden State Bail Agents Association, which opposed the
appellate procedures proposed by AB 2166, supports the changes
contained in the CLRC's revised recommendation and this bill.
The CLRC notes that the clarifying legislation "would benefit
the public by (1) reducing litigation expenses of the People and
of other parties to a bail forfeiture proceeding, and (2)
conserving judicial resources. The recommended legislation
should be promptly enacted to achieve these results." ( Id. at
7.)
Revisions to Clarify the Jurisdiction of Writ Petitions Related
to Small Claims Cases . After trial court unification, confusion
has also arisen regarding which court has jurisdiction over writ
petitions in small claims cases. Prior to trial court
AB 1529
Page 5
unification, small claims litigation was initiated in municipal
courts or justice courts; both types of courts were distinct
from, and subordinate to, the superior court. (Cal. L. Revision
Comm'n, Pre-Print Recommendation, Trial Court Restructuring:
Writ Jurisdiction in a Small Claims Case , at 4 (Aug. 2011).)
Pre-unification, jurisdiction of a writ petition in a small
claims matter depended on the stage of the litigation. After
trial court unification, Article VI, § 10 was amended to
accommodate the fact of restructuring. ( Id. at 7.) However,
the amendment did not clearly indicate "whether a small claims
litigant could seek a writ within the superior court, instead of
having to go to a higher court." As a result, small claims
litigations have been frustrated in their attempts to petition
for relief. The CLRC recommended the following framework for
jurisdiction of writ petitions in small claims matters:
Initial Hearing. If a writ petition challenges a ruling
made at the initial hearing before the small claims
division of a superior court, the petition could be heard
by a member of the court's appellate division, or it could
be heard by a court of higher jurisdiction.
Small Claims Appeal. If a writ petition challenges a
ruling made by the superior court in a small claims appeal,
the petition could be heard by the court of appeal or by
the Supreme Court.
Postjudgment Enforcement Order. If a writ petition
challenges a postjudgment enforcement order of the small
claims division of the superior court, the petition could
be heard by the appellate division of the superior court,
or it could be heard by a court of higher jurisdiction.
( Id. at 13.) The CLRC notes that the proposed clarification of
writ jurisdiction scheme would "prevent confusion, decrease
disputes, and reduce associated expenses. The legislation would
also conform to constitutional constraints, minimize peer review
concerns, and conserve judicial resources." ( Id. at 13-14.)
AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS
- On page 7, line 19, after "interpreter" insert a comma
- On page 21, line 17, delete "district"
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1529
Page 6
Congress of Racial Equality of California
Golden State Bail Agents Association
Two Jinn, Inc. dba Aladdin Bail Bonds
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Josh Fox / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334