People v. Aegis Security Insurance

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P. J.

Aegis Security Insurance Company (Aegis) appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside a judgment and discharge an order forfeiting a bail bond relating to a client who failed to appear in the underlying criminal case. Aegis contends the court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against it because the notice of forfeiture incorrectly listed the date of the actual order of forfeiture. We conclude this error did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enter judgment and affirm the order, but remand the matter to the superior court to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc to state the correct date of forfeiture. We further grant, in part, respondent’s request for judicial notice.

FACTS

The defendant in the underlying criminal case, Son Dinh Pham, failed to appear for a mandatory court appearance on February 27, 2003, after being released on $150,000 bail. Pham had been in court that morning, but he apparently could not be located when the case was called later in the afternoon. The court told Pham’s attorney, “I have to forfeit his bond, he’s

[572]

not here. That’s by statute.” After granting the attorney’s request for a brief recess to try to contact Pham, the court ordered the bond forfeited. The minute order which followed from this proceeding, however, stated, “Bail to be forfeited when received.”

On March 7, a notice of forfeiture of the bail bond was sent to Aegis and the bail agent. The notice listed the correct information identifying Pham, the casé number, the bond number, the amount of the bond, and the date the bond was posted. But it incorrectly listed the date of the court-ordered forfeiture as March 7, 2003—eight days after the February 27 proceeding in which Pham failed to appear.

On October 16, the court entered summary judgment on the forfeited bail bond as follows: “On March 7, 2003, Bail Bond No. ASIC150 7000175, in the sum of $150,000.00 was forfeited pursuant to Penal Code section 1305 for Son Dinh Pham’s failure to appear in the above-entitled court as directed .... [][] . .. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED .. . pursuant to provisions of section 1306 of the Penal Code . . . that the County of Orange recover from the above-named Defendant the sum of $150,000.00, together with interest. . . .”