BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1529
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2012
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1529 (Dickinson) - As Amended: May 3, 2012
SUMMARY : Enacts assorted non-controversial and largely
technical clarifications, including some pertaining to
jurisdictional issues that have arisen as a result of trial
court restructuring. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an appeal from an order of the superior court on
a motion to vacate a bail forfeiture shall be to the court of
appeal as an unlimited civil case if the amount in controversy
exceeds $25,000, and the appellate division of the superior
court as a limited civil case if the amount in controversy
does not exceed $25,000.
2)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.
3)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.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States when any bond is forfeited and the specified statutory
period of time has elapsed without the forfeiture having been
set aside, the court which has declared the forfeiture,
regardless of the amount of the bail, shall enter a summary
judgment against each bondsman named in the bond in the amount
for which the bondsman is bound. The judgment shall be the
amount of the bond plus costs, and notwithstanding any other
law, no penalty assessments shall be levied or added to the
judgment. ĘPenal Code Section 1306(a).]
2)Provides if a court grants relief from bail forfeiture, the
AB 1529
Page B
court shall impose a monetary payment as a condition of relief
to compensate the people for the costs of returning a
defendant to custody, 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. Failure
to act within the required time to make the payment imposed
shall not be the basis for a summary judgment against any, or
all, of the underlying amount of the bail. ĘPenal Code
Section 1306(b).]
3)States if, because of the failure of any court to promptly
perform the duties enjoined upon it, summary judgment is not
entered within 90 days after the date upon which it may first
be entered, the right to do so expires and the bail is
exonerated. ĘPenal Code Section 1306(c).]
4)Provides a dismissal of the complaint, indictment, or
information after the default of the defendant shall not
release or affect the obligation of the bail bond or
undertaking. ĘPenal Code Section 1306(d).]
5)States the district attorney or county counsel shall ĘPenal
Code Section 1306(d)]:
a) Demand immediate payment of the judgment within 30 days
after the summary judgment becomes final.
b) If the judgment remains unpaid for a period of 20 days
after demand has been made, shall forthwith enforce the
judgment in the manner provided for enforcement of money
judgments generally. If the judgment is appealed by the
surety or bondsman, the undertaking required to be given in
these cases shall be provided by a surety other than the
one filing the appeal.
6)Provides the right to enforce a summary judgment entered
against a bondsman pursuant to this section shall expire two
years after the entry of the judgment. ĘPenal Code Section
1306(e).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
AB 1529
Page C
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "in the late
1990's, California's trial court system was substantially
restructured through a number of reforms. As a result of trial
court restructuring, literally hundreds of statutes became
obsolete, in whole or in part. AB 1529 seeks to continue the
process of revising the codes to reflect trial court
restructuring by implementing the recommendations made by the
California Law Revision Commission."
2)Court Unification : In 1996, the Legislature approved a
constitutional amendment to provide for the voluntary
unification of county superior and municipal courts.
Beginning June 3, 1998, a majority vote of superior court
judges and a majority vote of municipal court judges within
each of California's 58 counties may elect to abolish their
municipal courts and establish a unified county superior
court.
Anticipating the passage of SCA 4 (Lockyer), Chapter 36,
Statutes of 1996, the Legislature commissioned the California
Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to review all affected statutes
to identify needed revisions. The Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC) also established the "SCA 4 Implementation
Working Group" to assist the CLRC in its task.
Prior to court unification, courts were divided into a two-tier
system of municipal courts ("lower courts") and superior
courts ("higher courts"). Under the criminal courts,
municipal courts typically heard misdemeanors from beginning
to end and felony filings up to, and including, the
preliminary hearing. Municipal court judges acted in the role
of "magistrates" in cases involving felonies, only hearing
pretrial matters such as arraignment, pretrial motions, pleas
and preliminary hearings. Once a defendant was "held to
answer" for an offense by a municipal court magistrate, the
matter was transferred to superior court. In criminal
matters, prior to unification, superior court judges heard
matters from the point of the filing of an "information" or an
"indictment." Generally, the superior court would hear the
jury trial phase of felony matters.
Following unification, all matters involving criminal
misdemeanors and felonies are heard in superior court.
AB 1529
Page D
3)CLRC Recommendations : In June 2007, the CLRC released a
report detailing its tentative recommendation on the issue of
"Appellate Jurisdiction on Bail Forfeiture." <1> CLRC noted
that confusion was created as to where appeals of bail
forfeitures should be heard since court unification. Prior to
unification, appeals from the municipal courts were heard in
the appellate division of the superior court and appeals from
superior court were heard in the courts of appeal.
CLRC states that one of the three factors that it considers
when making recommendations regarding court unification is
"ensuring that unification did not increase the workload of
the courts of appeal, but generally left intact the respective
workloads of the courts of appeal and appellate departments of
the superior courts."
CLRC saw two ways to clarify the existing confusion on where
bail forfeiture appeals should be heard. First, courts could
base jurisdiction on the amount in controversy. This
simplistic method is based on existing rules in civil courts.
If jurisdiction were based on the amount in controversy, bail
forfeiture appeals in excess of $25,000 would be heard by the
court of appeal, while those under $25,000 would be heard by
the appellate division of the superior court. However, the
CLRC failed to recommend this approach because it would alter
the system that was in place prior to court unification. The
CLRC feared that this approach would potentially increase the
workload of the courts of appeal, thereby violating one of the
three factors they consider when making recommendations.
However, most courts have been operating in this manner since
unification and no examples were provided showing that
appellate courts have experienced problems as a result.
Alternatively, the CLRC recommended maintaining the system
that was in place prior to court unification. By basing
appellate rights on the origin of the court hearing the matter
and determining whether the court is acting as a former
municipal court, the court of appeal's workload would
presumably remain stable. This recommendation was ultimately
rejected by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety when AB
2166 (Tran), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, failed
passage in this committee.
--------------------------
<1> The entire report may be located online at
http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Misc-Report/TR-J1450.pdf .
AB 1529
Page E
After AB 2166 was defeated, the CLRC developed a new approach
to the matter, which addresses the concerns raised in
connection with AB 2166. Trial Court Restructuring: Appellate
Jurisdiction of Bail Forfeiture (April 2011), by recommending
the first approach (based on the amount in controversy). AB
1529 would implement this new approach, which appears to be
noncontroversial.
4)Bail Forfeiture Appeals : Bail forfeiture proceedings are
civil in nature. ĘPeople v. American Contractors Indemnity
Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657.] In general, jurisdiction on
appeal of civil matters is determined by the amount in
controversy. Appeals of matters involving $25,000 or more are
heard in the court of appeal. Appeals involving $25,000 or
less are heard in the appellate division of the superior
court.
The appellate divisions of superior courts are set up to hear
appellate matters involving less than $25,000. The appellate
divisions have different procedural rules than the courts of
appeal. Appellate divisions do not have to issue written
opinions, appeals of the division are discretionary, appellate
briefs must be shorter than the courts of appeal, and less
time is provided for preparing the briefs and filings.
Additionally, appellate division judges are superior court
judges who sit on a panel which reviews the decisions of
fellow superior court judges as opposed to appellate court
justices who are appointed to the courts of appeal.
a) Less Time to File Notice of Appeal : The time to file a
notice of appeal in the appellate divisions is only 30 days
after a party or the court clerk serves or mails a notice
of the entry of the appealable judgment or order; if there
is no notice, 90 days after entry. ĘCal. Rules of Court,
Rule 8.751(a).] However, these time limits are doubled to
60 days and 180 days, respectively, in the district courts
of appeal. ĘCal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.104.]
b) Less Time to File Briefs : Opening briefs must be filed
in appellate division appeals within 20 days after the
record of appeal is filed, the respondent must file a brief
within 20 days after appellant's brief is filed, and the
appellant may file a reply brief within 10 days after
respondent's brief is filed. ĘCal. Rules of Court, Rule
8.706(a).] In contrast, district courts of appeal allow 30
AB 1529
Page F
days for the filing of appellant and respondents briefs and
20 days for the appellant to file a reply brief. ĘCal.
Rules of Court, Rule 8.212(a).]
c) Shorter Length of Briefs : Briefs can be no longer than
15 pages in appellate division appeals without the
presiding judge's permission. ĘCal. Rules of Court, Rule
8.706(c).] District courts of appeal allow briefs of up to
14,000 words, or roughly 50 pages, before having to receive
the court's permission for longer briefs. ĘCal. Rules of
Court, Rule 8.204(c).]
d) No Written Opinions Required : Unlike the district
courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, appellate
divisions are not required to issue written opinions
explaining the reasons for their decisions. ĘCal. Rules of
Court, Rule 8.707(b).]
5)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2166 (Tran), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session,
clarified the appellate procedure for appeals from orders
of the superior courts on motions to vacate bail
forfeitures. AB 2166 failed passage in the Assembly
Committee on Public Safety.
b) SB 79 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter 149, Statutes of
2003, implemented the CLRC's recommendation on Statutes
Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring: Part 2, 33
Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. 169 (2003).
c) SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter 784, Statutes
of 2002, approved by the voters November 5, 2002
(Proposition 48), implemented the CLRC's recommendation on
Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring: Part
1, 32 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. 1 (2002).
d) SB 210 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter 344, Statutes
of 1999, implemented follow-up legislation recommended by
CLRC. ĘSee Report of the California Law Revision
Commission on Chapter 344 of the Statutes of 1999 (Senate
Bill 210), 29 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. 657 (1999).]
e) SB 2139 (Lockyer), Chapter 931, Statutes of 1998,
implemented CLRC's recommendation on Trial Court
AB 1529
Page G
Unification: Revision of Codes, 28 Cal. Law Revision Com.
Rep. 51 (1998).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Aladdin Bail Bonds
California Bail Agents Association
California Law Review Commission
Golden State Bail Agents Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744