BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
5
2
AB 1529 (Dickinson) 9
As Amended May 3, 2012
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
Business and Professions Code; Code of Civil Procedure;
Education Code; Family Code; Government Code; Penal Code
JM:mc
TRIAL COURTS:
RESTRUCTURING BAIL FORFEITURE APPEALS
HISTORY
Source: California Law Revision Commission
Prior Legislation: 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
AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary) - Ch. 212, Stats.
2010.
Support: California Bail Agents Association; Golden State Bail
Agents Association; Aladdin Bail Bonds
Opposition:None known
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageB
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION
COMMISSION CONCERNING TRIAL COURT RESTRUCTURING BE ADOPTED?
SHOULD THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BAIL FORFEITURE APPEALS
BE DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) implement various
recommendations of the California Law Review Commission
concerning trial court restructuring and state responsibility
for the courts; and 2) specifically provide that a bail
forfeiture appeal in which the amount in controversy exceeds
$25,000 shall be heard in the court of appeal and an appeal
involving $25,000 or less shall be heard in an appellate
division of a superior court.
Trial Court Restructuring Generally
Existing law provides 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 § 77200.)
Existing law specifies that no county shall be responsible for
funding court operations. (Gov. Code § 77201.)<1>
Existing law requires the California Law Review Commission
(CLRC) to determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete
---------------------------
<1> Trial court restricting became effective July 1, 1977.
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageC
as a result of trial court restructuring and to recommend to the
Legislature any amendments to remove those obsolete provisions.
(Gov. Code § 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
operations.
Bail Forfeiture Appeals and Related Matters
Existing law provides that when a bail bond is forfeited, and
the time has passed during which the bail agent can return the
defendant to court and have the forfeiture set aside, the court
shall enter a summary judgment on the forfeiture. (Pen. Code §
1306, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that if the court fails to perform duties
concerning execution of a bail forfeiture and summary judgment
is not entered within 90 days, bail shall be exonerated. (Pen.
Code § 1306, subd. (c).)
Existing law states that the district attorney or county counsel
shall do the following in regard to bail defaults:
The prosecutor shall demand immediate payment of the
judgment within 30 days after the summary judgment becomes
final.
If the judgment remains unpaid for a period of 20 days,
the prosecutor shall enforce the judgment as a money
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageD
judgment. 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. (Pen. Code § 1306, subd. (d).)
Existing law provides that the right to enforce a summary
judgment entered against a bondsman expires two years after the
entry of judgment. (Pen. Code § 1306, subd. (e).)
This bill 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.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageE
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageF
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this Bill
According to the author:
This bill seeks to implement the recommendations of
the California Law Revision Commission (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. Bail Forfeiture Appeals - Background
Where a defendant who has been released on bail fails to return
to court, the bail is ordered forfeited and the bail agent is
given 180 days to return the defendant to court before judgment
on the forfeiture is entered and the bond paid. The time for
returning the defendant to court can be extended for specified
reasons. The rules concerning "exoneration" of bail are
complex. It is not uncommon for bail agents to appeal an order
executing bail forfeiture. This bill clarifies the jurisdiction
of the court of appeal and the appellate division of each
superior court to hear bail forfeiture appeals.
Bail forfeiture cases are civil proceedings. (People v.
American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 657.)
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageG
In general, jurisdiction in civil law appeals is determined by
the amount in controversy in the case. Appeals in which $25,000
or more is at stake are heard in the court of appeal. Appeals
in which $25,000 or less are at stake are heard in the appellate
division of the superior court.
3. California Law Revision Recommendations on Bail Forfeiture
Appeal Jurisdiction
In June 2007, the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC)
released recommendations on the issue of "Appellate Jurisdiction
on Bail Forfeiture."<2> The recommendations addressed confusion
arising under court unification as to where appeals of bail
forfeitures shall be decided. 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 court of appeal. In making its recommendations, CLRC
seeks to not change the relative workloads of the superior court
appellate divisions and the court of appeal.
CLRC identified two ways to clarify the existing confusion on
where bail forfeiture appeals should be heard. First,
jurisdiction could be based on the amount in controversy - the
usual rule in civil courts. If jurisdiction is based on the
amount in controversy, bail forfeiture appeals in excess of
$25,000 are to be heard by the court of appeal, while those
under $25,000 are to be heard by the appellate division of the
superior court. However, CLRC did not recommend this approach
because it altered the system in place prior to court
unification, potentially increasing the workload of the court of
appeal. However, most courts operated in this manner since
unification and there was no showing that appellate courts have
experienced problems as a result.
Nevertheless, the CLRC recommended maintaining the system in
place prior to court unification. Where the trial court acted
as a former municipal court, an appeal would be heard in the
appellate division of the superior court. Where the trial court
---------------------------
<2> The entire report may be located online at
http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Misc-Report/TR-J1450.pdf .
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageH
acted as a superior court under prior rules, the appeal would be
taken to the court of appeal. In this way the workload of court
of appeal would likely 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 the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
(More)
After AB 2166 was defeated, the CLRC did recommend that
jurisdiction in bail forfeiture appeals be based on the amount
in controversy in the case. (Trial Court Restructuring:
Appellate Jurisdiction of Bail Forfeiture (April 2011).)<3> AB
1529 would implement this recommendation.
4. Differences Between the Appellate Division of the Superior
Court and Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction and Procedures Generally
In civil matters, the appellate divisions of superior courts
hear appeals involving less than $25,000. The appellate
divisions have different procedural rules than the courts of
appeal. Appellate division judges are superior court judges who
sit on a panel which reviews the decisions of fellow superior
court judges. Appellate court justices are appointed and review
superior court matters.
Deadlines for Filing a Notice of Appeal
One must file a notice of appeal in the appellate division of
the superior court within 30 days of the notice of entry of the
judgment or order. If notice has not been given, filing must be
within 90 days of judgment entry. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.751, subd. (a).) However, notice of appeal in the court of
appeal must be filed within 60 days of notice of judgment, and
within 180 days if notice has not been given. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.104.)
Briefing Schedules
In the appellate division of the superior court, the opening
brief must be filed within 20 days of the filing of the
appellate record. 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.706,
subd. (a).) In contrast, the court of appeal allows 30 days for
---------------------------
<3> http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Printed-Reports/RECpp-J1450rv.pdf
(More)
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageJ
the filing of the appellant's opening brief, 30 days for
respondent's brief, and 20 days the appellant's reply brief.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.212, subd. (a).)
Length of Briefs
Briefs can be no longer than 15 pages in appellate division
appeals without the presiding judge's permission. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.706, subd. (c).) The maximum length of a brief
filed in the court of appeal is 14,000 words, or roughly 50
pages. A longer brief can be filed upon approval of the court.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204, subd. (c).)
Written Opinions are not Required in the Appellate Division of
the Superior Court
Unlike the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, superior court
appellate divisions are not required to issue written opinions
explaining the reasons for their decisions. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.707, subd. (b).)
5. Senate Judiciary Committee Summary of the Function of the
California Law Revision Commission
The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of this bill described
trial court restructuring and the function of the California Law
Review Commission in recommending changes to the law to
implement court restructuring:
The state's trial court system was restructured ? in
the late 1990's. Following ? trial court
Ýconsolidation], the Trial Court Unification Act
unified the justice, municipal, and superior courts ?
Ýin all] 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
AB 1529 (Dickinson)
PageK
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) ? determines
whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a result
of trial court restructuring and recommends
Ýlegislation] to remove those obsolete provisions.
ÝT]he 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 Compared
to the Superior Court (Part 1), 39 Cal. L. Revision
Comm'n Reports 157, 162 (2009).)
***************