BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
As Amended May 3, 2012
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
SK
SUBJECT
Trial Courts: Restructuring and Bail Forfeiture
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the California Law Revision Commission,
would make various changes necessitated by trial court
restructuring.
BACKGROUND
Starting with the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of
1997, the state's trial court system was restructured
significantly in the late 1990's. Following the consolidation
of trial court operations, the Trial Court Unification Act
unified the justice, municipal, and superior courts, unifying
all of the courts or superior courts for California's 58
counties. Further restructuring continued with the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA), which
transferred control of trial court employment to the courts.
The Legislature continues to update the codes to reflect the
restructuring accomplished in the late 1990's.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 71674, the California Law
Revision Commission (CLRC) is required to determine whether any
provisions of law are obsolete as a result of trial court
restructuring and to recommend to the Legislature any amendments
to remove those obsolete provisions. In its work, the CLRC
notes that it "has sought to update the statutes without making
any substantive changes other than those necessary to reflect
the trial court restructuring reforms." (Trial Court
Restructuring: Rights and Responsibilities of the County as
(more)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 2 of ?
Compared to the Superior Court (Part 1), 39 Cal. L. Revision
Comm'n Reports 157, 162 (2009).)
Over the years, the CLRC's recommendations on trial court
restructuring have been adopted by the Legislature in SB 2139
(Lockyer, Ch. 931, Stats. 1998), SB 210 (Committee on Judiciary,
Ch. 344, Stats. 1999), SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch.
784, Stats. 2002), SB 79 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 149,
Stats. 2003), SB 649 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 43, Stats.
2007), SB 1182 (Ackerman, Ch. 56, Stats. 2008), and AB 2767
(Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 212, Stats. 2010).
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides, on and after July 1, 1997, that the state
bears sole responsibility for the funding of court operations
and requires the state to be responsible for the cost of court
operations incurred by the trial courts. (Gov. Code Sec.
77200.)
Existing law specifies, beginning July 1, 1997, that no county
shall be responsible for funding court operations. (Gov. Code
Sec. 77201.)
Existing law provides for a personnel system for trial court
employees under the Trial Court Employment Protection and
Governance Act and specifies that trial court employees are
employed by the court, not by the county. (Gov. Code Secs.
71600 et seq., 71615(c)(5), 71601(l), and 71645(a).)
Existing law requires the CLRC to determine whether any
provisions of law are obsolete as a result of trial court
restructuring and to recommend to the Legislature any amendments
to remove those obsolete provisions. (Gov. Code Sec. 71674.)
This bill would delete references to municipal courts, judicial
districts, counties, and county entities made obsolete by the
shift to state funding of trial court operations.
This bill would clarify which tribunal has jurisdiction of a
writ petition in a small claims case after trial court
restructuring.
This bill would revise existing law relating to the compensation
of expert witnesses, interpreters, and translators to reflect
the shift from county to state funding of trial court
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 3 of ?
operations.
This bill would clarify jurisdiction of a bail forfeiture appeal
after trial court restructuring.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
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.
2. Deletion of obsolete references to municipal courts, judicial
districts, counties, and county entities
This bill would implement the CLRC's recommendations to delete
obsolete references to municipal courts, judicial districts,
counties, and county entities to "reflect the shift from county
to state funding of trial court operations." (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, 159 (2009).) The bill would also address
provisions made obsolete by trial court unification and TCEPGA.
For example, Family Code Section 7556, relating to a
determination of paternity in a criminal case, provides that
compensation of a paternity expert "shall be paid by the county
under order of court." The CLRC's recommendation notes,
however, that "compensation of an expert witness who is
appointed by the court for the court's needs is classified as a
'court operation' within the meaning of the Trial Court Funding
Act. Consequently, the state, not the county, is responsible
for payment when an expert witness is appointed by the court for
the court's needs." (Id. at 165.) This bill would accordingly
revise existing law to make clear that the court must pay the
compensation of experts appointed by the court for the court's
needs.
In addition, the Trial Court Funding Act provided that courts
manage themselves, and the TCEPGA specified that the court
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 4 of ?
itself employs and manages trial court personnel. This bill
would make changes to existing provisions of law to reflect the
fact that the responsibility for managing the courts and
employing court personnel has been transferred from the county
to the court itself. For example, Family Code Section 1820
specifies that certain family conciliation court staff may be
considered employees of one participating county, for particular
purposes. Because court employees are no longer county
employees, this section should refer to employees of one
participating court, rather than a participating county.
3. Clarifying jurisdiction of writ petitions in small claims
cases
This bill would implement the CLRC's recommendations which
clarify, after trial court restructuring, which tribunal has
jurisdiction of a writ petition in a small claims case. (Trial
Court Restructuring: Writ Jurisdiction in a Small Claims Case,
Pre-Print Recommendation, California Law Revision Commission,
August 2011.) The CLRC notes that, after trial court
restructuring, it is unclear with which tribunal a litigant must
file a writ petition relating to a small claims case. The CLRC
further states, "Ýl]itigants are confused, some are seeking
assistance, and some are having writs denied due to filing in
the wrong court." (Id. at 10.)
Prior to trial court unification, three types of trial courts
existed in California: superior courts, municipal courts, and
justice courts. Small claims cases were initiated in municipal
courts or justice courts. Both of these courts were lower
courts with limited jurisdiction, and a defendant's appeal of a
small claims court judgment was conducted by a judge of the
superior court. Prior to unification, jurisdiction of a writ
petition depended on the stage of the case. After unification,
there are no longer three types of trial courts in this state.
Instead, the small claims division is now part of the superior
court. In order to reflect trial court unification, the
constitutional provision relating to writ jurisdiction was
amended but the CLRC notes that it is still unclear "whether a
small claims litigant could seek a writ within the superior
court, instead of having to go to a higher court." (Id. at 7.)
The CLRC's recommendation, contained in this bill, would provide
that the appropriate tribunal be dependent on the stage of the
small claims case when the act that is challenged in the writ
petition occurred. This is similar to the approach that existed
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 5 of ?
prior to unification. The CLRC notes that "Ýt]he sole purpose
of the Ýrecommendation] is to clarify which tribunal has
jurisdiction of a writ petition relating to a small claims case
after trial court unification. The Ýrecommendation] would not
alter the circumstances under which writ relief is appropriate."
The recommendation proposes the following:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.)
In support of this provision of the bill, the CLRC's report
noted, "Ýb]y providing clear guidance to small claims litigants
and court personnel, the recommended legislation 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. Enacting the legislation would thus further
significant objectives and serve the needs of the public." (Id.)
4. Revisions to Evidence Code to reflect shift to state funding
of trial court operations
This bill would implement the CLRC's recommendation revising the
Evidence Code to reflect the shift from county to state funding
of trial court operations. These recommendations are contained
in the CLRC's Recommendation on Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial
Court Restructuring, Part 5, 39 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports
109 (2009).
For example, Evidence Code Section 731 provides that the county
may pay for medical experts appointed by the court in civil
cases. Because counties are no longer responsible for paying
for experts appointed for a court's needs, however, the CLRC
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 6 of ?
recommends that the court-not the county-should have discretion
to determine whether to pay for court-appointed medical experts.
The bill would accordingly make this change. This bill would
also further amend Section 731 to make clear that the
court-rather than the county-is responsible for paying an expert
who is appointed for the court's needs in a criminal or juvenile
case.
This bill would also amend Evidence Code Sections 752 and 753 to
specify that, in a criminal or juvenile case, the court-rather
than the county-is responsible for paying an interpreter for a
witness or a translator of a writing offered in evidence.
5. Double referral to Senate Public Safety Committee
This bill would also implement the CLRC's recommendation
clarifying jurisdiction of a bail forfeiture appeal after trial
court restructuring. The bill has been double-referred to the
Senate Public Safety Committee for consideration of this
provision, and, as a result, should the Committee approve the
bill, the motion should be to the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
Support : California Bail Agents Association; Golden State Bail
Agents Association; Two Jinn, Inc. dba Aladdin Bail Bonds
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 2139 (Lockyer, Ch. 931, Stats. 1998) See Background.
SB 210 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 344, Stats. 1999) See
Background.
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 784, Stats. 2002) See
Background.
SB 79 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 149, Stats. 2003) See
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 7 of ?
Background.
SB 649 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 43, Stats. 2007) See
Background.
SB 1182 (Ackerman, Ch. 56, Stats. 2008) See Background.
AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 212, Stats. 2010) See
Background.
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
Page 8 of ?
Prior Vote :
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 8, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (Ayes 6, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
**************