People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. CA6

Filed 3/14/14 P. v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038148 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC964365)

v.

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

American Contractors Indemnity Company (American Contractors) appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail. American Contractors argues the trial court erred in denying its motion because the hearing at which the defendant/bailee failed to appear was a contempt proceeding, separate and apart from his pending criminal case, and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order forfeiture of his bail bond. For the reasons discussed below, we agree the trial court lacked jurisdiction to forfeit bail and will reverse. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant Ramon Brown was charged with multiple felonies in Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CC964365. On December 23, 2009, American Contractors posted a $100,000 bail bond (No. AUL-2067407) to secure Brown’s release from custody in that case. Brown appeared for a master trial calendar hearing on December 6, 2010.

The judge, the Honorable Philip H. Pennypacker, indicated Brown’s case was on “stand- by” and said Brown would need to return to court the following week. After the court heard other cases, however, Brown was recalled. Judge Pennypacker said Brown had been observed downstairs “taking pictures of the security set up in the downstairs department area [sic] of this court which is extremely serious.” The court stated it “considers what [Brown] has done to be a violation of a court order not to take pictures inside of the court without written permission.” Brown’s cell phone, which he had been using to take these photos, was seized and Judge Pennypacker directed Brown to return to “my department tomorrow morning with your lawyer at nine o’clock.” Judge Pennypacker concluded the proceedings by stating he “need[ed] to figure out whether there’s a court order.”1 Brown did not appear at the hearing the next day (December 7, 2010), and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. The court noted “the record should be clear that yesterday the court asked that this matter be brought up to this department for hearing regarding contempt of . . . Brown because he had taken pictures with his iPhone of the security arrangement available in the court. It is in direct violation of the rules of court and any orders that forbid photography inside of the courthouse.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the forfeiture of Brown’s $100,000 bail. Notice of bail forfeiture was filed on December 9, 2010, advising that forfeiture would become final on June 6, 2011. On February 1, 2012, the court entered judgment against American Contractors, forfeiting the $100,000 bail. American Contractors moved to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail, but that motion was denied by written order. In that order, the court noted that Judge Pennypacker, who had ordered Brown to return to court on December