People v. Resolute Insurance

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, Acting P. J.

In 1971 Penal Code section 1303 was adopted, establishing a procedure for transferring bail from a dismissed criminal charge to a new criminal charge.

1

Here we consider the effect of the clerk’s- failure to comply with the statute’s command to notify the bondsman of the transfer.

[435]

Defendant Salazar was arrested on a complaint charging narcotic violations. Bail totaling $25,000 was posted by a group of sureties. A few weeks later the grand jury indicted him on approximately the same charges, plus a conspiracy charge. On February 8, 1973, Salazar appeared before a magistrate, who granted a prosecution motion to dismiss the complaint, and ordered the bail transferred to the indictment. The clerk did not notify the bail bondsmen of the transfer. Salazar was arraigned on the indictment, pleaded not guilty and remained at liberty on the bail previously posted. Ultimately he failed to appear for jury trial and the court ordered forfeiture of bail. The court denied the sureties’ motion for exoneration. Over the latters’ protest the court ordered

entry

of a summary judgment. The bondsmen appeal.

Two rules govern here. One is the law’s antipathy to forfeitures and its strict construction of statutes to avoid forfeiture. The second declares: “ ‘[W]here a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction.’ ” These rules hold sway in bail forfeiture cases.

(People

v.

United Bonding Ins. Co.,

5 Cal.3d 898, 904 [98 Cal.Rptr. 57, 489 P.2d 1385];

People

v.

Wilshire Ins. Co.,

46 Cal.App.3d 216, 220 [119 Cal.Rptr. 917].)