People v. Ranger Ins. Co.

113 Cal.Rptr.2d 759 (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1286 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B145348. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six.

November 26, 2001. Review Granted March 13, 2002. [761] Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant.

Stephen Shane Stark, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[760] PERREN, J.

John Nicholas Tautu pled no contest to two counts of burglary. He failed to appear for sentencing, and the court ordered his bail forfeited. Ranger Insurance Company (Ranger) appeals from the subsequent order of the court denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture of the bail bond. Ranger argues that the order of forfeiture should have been set aside and the bond exonerated because the court failed to make findings on whether to allow defendant to remain at liberty on bail after his conviction in accordance with amended Penal Code section 1166.[1] Because section 1166 does not apply to cases resolved by plea, it does not apply to this case. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

Tautu was charged with burglary, forgery and related offenses. The court released Tautu after Ranger posted a bail bond of $100,000. He subsequently pled no contest to two counts of burglary. The negotiated, conditional plea contemplated that Tautu would be placed on probation, pay various costs, and serve 60 days in jail "as a term and condition of his felony probation at a later time at which he will surrender." The court accepted the plea, dismissed the remaining charges and set the matter for sentencing about a month later. When Tautu did not appear for sentencing, the court ordered forfeiture of his bail.

Ranger moved to vacate the order of forfeiture and exonerate bail, arguing that the court lost its jurisdiction over the bond because it permitted Tautu to remain at liberty on bail without taking evidence or making the findings specified by section 1166, as amended. In denying the motion, the trial court ruled that section 1166 does not apply to convictions by negotiated plea. It also concluded that section 1166 does not require the court to take evidence and make findings before releasing defendant on bail after conviction.