People v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc.

Filed 10/23/18

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Appellate Division No.: CA271359 Trial Court Case No.: CD269110 Plaintiff and Appellant, Trial Court Location: Central Division

v. DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from the February 27, 2017 Order denying the motion to recover extradition costs under Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (b) entered by the Superior Court of San Diego County, Leo Valentine, Jr., Judge. Following argument on October 18, 2018, this matter was taken under submission. AFFIRMED. The defendant in this case was arrested by local authorities in Las Vegas, and the People unsuccessfully attempted to recover $5,465.78 in alleged extradition costs incurred by the San Diego Police Department under Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (b). The trial court properly denied the People’s motion for extradition costs related to returning defendant to San Diego County.

Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (b) is unambiguous and is expressly limited to the court’s imposition of “a monetary payment as a condition of relief [from bail forfeiture] to compensate the people for the costs of returning defendant to custody pursuant to Section 1305, except for cases where the court determines that in the best interest of justice no costs should be imposed.” (Italics added.) As explained in People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1302:

“…The amount imposed [under section 1306(b)] shall reflect the actual costs of returning the defendant to custody.” (Emphasis added.) This unambiguous provision leaves no doubt that, in conditional exoneration orders, trial courts are limited to the actual cost of returning the defendant to custody. Clearly, by imposing an assessment representing the cost of housing and caring for Downs after her return to custody, the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction under the statute.

“The object of bail and its forfeiture is to insure the attendance of the accused and his obedience to the orders and judgment of the court. In matters of this kind there should be no element of revenue to the state nor punishment of the surety. [Citation.]” [Citations.] (Id. at pp. 1307-1308; original italics; underline added for emphasis.) Section 1305 uses the term “custody” to include custody within the County and “outside the county,” as was the case here. (Pen. Code, §1305, subdivision (c)(3) [“If, outside the county where the case is located, the defendant surrendered to custody by the bail or is arrested in the underlying case within the 180-day period, the court shall vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail.”].) Arrest “in the underlying case” includes a hold placed on a defendant in another jurisdiction based on an outstanding warrant even if the defendant is otherwise arrested on a separate charge in the other jurisdiction. (See People v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 146, 152-153.) A return to “custody” is clearly not synonymous with “extradition” as both terms are used separately in subdivision (f) of section 1305 and “custody” expressly relates to “custody beyond the jurisdiction” -- “In all cases where a defendant is in custody beyond the jurisdiction of the court that ordered the bail forfeited, and the prosecuting agency elects not to seek extradition after being informed of the location of the defendant, the court shall vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond on terms that are just….” (Italics added.) The People’s suggested interpretation that extradition costs are to be included as “actual costs of returning defendant to custody” is contrary to