People v. Bankers Insurance Co.

Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate its bond. Bankers *1531 contends the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a bail forfeiture. (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a) (section 1305(a)).) We agree with B ankers’s contention and reverse the order.

FACTS

Bankers posted a $75,000 bail bond for the release of criminal defendant Rodney McKinney. McKinney was ordered to appear on August 17, 2006.

On August 17, McKinney failed to appear. The reporter’s transcript reflects the following discussion between Superior Court Judge Frank Brown and counsel:

The minute order stated the bail was “forfeited,” and that a bench warrant was issued with a $200,000 bail requirement. Eight days later, on August 25, *1532 the clerk mailed a document notifying Bankers of the forfeiture of the bail bond. The notice stated the forfeiture would become final unless Bankers obtained an order setting aside the forfeiture. Bankers was thereafter granted extensions of time to file a motion to vacate the forfeiture.

On August 22, 2007, Bankers moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail on grounds…

Dissenting. — I respectfully dissent.

I agree with the majority that it would be preferable if the trial courts always stated in open court that “bail is forfeited” when declaring a bail forfeiture. However, the statute, Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a) does not specifically require those words be used but states “[a] court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail . . . [when] a defendant fails to appear . . . .” Here in open court, the judge stated “we’ll keep the bail bond and issue a warrant” in the amount of $200,000. In my view, in the context of issuing a $200,000 bench warrant, the phrase “we’ll keep the bail bond” is not reasonably susceptible to any interpretation other than declaring a forfeiture of the $75,000 bail bond and the statutory requirement is thus met.

*1536 Appellant claims no prejudice for the manner in which the trial judge spoke. The minutes reflect that bail was forfeited and a notice of forfeiture was timely mailed.

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment below.

Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate a forfeiture and exonerate its bond. Bankers contends the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a bail forfeiture. (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (a) (section 1305(a)).) We agree with Bankers's contention and reverse the order.

Bankers posted a $75,000 bail bond for the release of criminal defendant Rodney McKinney. McKinney was ordered to appear on August 17, 2006.

On August 17, McKinney failed to appear. The reporter's transcript reflects the following discussion between Superior Court Judge Frank Brown and counsel:

"The Court: Okay. In the matter of the People versus Rodney Howard McKinney. On behalf of the District Attorney?

"Mr. Pro: Good morning, Your Honor. John Pro on behalf of the People.

"The Court: Good morning.

"Mr. Cary: And Donald Cary on behalf of Mr. McKinney, who is not in this courtroom, Your Honor.

"The Court: And he bailed out on 75,000. So we'll keep the bail bond and issue a warrant at—How much does the D.A. want?

"Mr. Pro: It was at seventy-five.

"The Court: So two hundred?

"Mr. Cary: I was asking for seventy-five.

"The Court:…