People v. Allegheny Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. S141483.,S141483.
• Citation: 161 P.3d 198,41 Cal.4th 704,61 Cal.Rptr.3d 689
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY, Alameda County Defendant and Appellant.

61 Cal.Rptr.3d 689

41 Cal.4th 704

161 P.3d 198

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY, Alameda County Defendant and Appellant.

No. S141483.

Supreme Court of California.

July 9, 2007.

Karen D. Hill, La Mesa, for Defendant and Appellant.

Richard E. Winnie, County Counsel, and William M. Baldwin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a) (section 1305(a)),¹ requires that a forfeiture of bail be declared "in open court." In this case the trial judge ordered forfeiture, but the record does not affirmatively establish whether this declaration did, or did not, occur in open court. We granted review to address in this setting the propriety of a trial court's subsequent order denying the bail surety's motion to set aside the forfeiture and to exonerate the bond.

We conclude as follows: Although the circumstance that a trial court has declared a bail forfeiture is a matter that should be reflected in the court's minutes, and although it is better practice for the minutes further to reflect that such a declaration was made orally in open court, as required by section 1305(a), contrary to the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal below the statute does not require that a reporter's transcript, or the minutes, reflect the circumstance that the declaration occurred in open court. Moreover, consistent with the well-established presumptions that "official duty has been regularly performed" and that a court (or judge) is "presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction" (Evid. Code, §§ 664 & 666), in the posture in which this case arises (but contrary to the determination of the appellate court below) a failure to declare forfeiture in open court will not be presumed on a silent record. Because in the present case the party seeking to set aside the forfeiture and exonerate the bond has not established that the trial court failed to declare the forfeiture in open court, we reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal.

I

Allegheny Mutual Casualty Company (Allegheny) posted a $60,000 bond for the release from custody of criminal defendant Fernando Velente. The court's minutes reflect that on March 21, 2001, Velente failed to appear as ordered at 11:00 a.m. and the trial judge ordered bail forfeited and issued a bench warrant, but the minutes do not affirmatively reflect that the judge declared the forfeiture in open court. There is no reporter's transcript of the March 21 proceedings, apparently because no court reporter was present at the time. Subsequently, Velente still not having been located, the court issued summary judgment against the bond, pursuant to section 1306.

Nearly two years after the summary judgment had become final, Allegheny moved to set it aside, arguing that section 1305(a) requires bail forfeitures to be declared in open court and that, absent a reporter's transcript demonstrating that this occurred, the trial court was without jurisdiction over the bond, and therefore the bond was exonerated as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion in April 2004, concluding that (1) the statute imposes a declaration-in-open-court requirement, but does not impose a requirement that a reporter's transcript or the minutes reflect that the declaration was made orally in open court; (2) in the absence of a record making clear that the declaration occurred in open court, the presumption is that this is what occurred; (3) the absence of a reporter's transcript of the proceedings does not undermine an otherwise proper declaration of forfeiture made in open court; and (4) in light of a minute order disclosing that the trial court ordered bail forfeited and issued a bench warrant (even though this order did not recite that the declaration itself occurred in open court), the forfeiture of bail should stand.

The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that the declaration-in-open-court requirement calls for an express statement of forfeiture by the judge in open court and also that a reporter's transcript — or, apparently, at least the minutes — must reflect that the declaration was made orally in open court. The appellate court further concluded that because in this case there is no reporter's transcript of the relevant proceedings, and the minutes do not affirmatively reflect that the trial judge declared the forfeiture in open court, the bail forfeiture must be vacated and the bond exonerated. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal.

II

Section 1305(a) provides in relevant part: "A court shall in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail or the money or property deposited as bail if, without sufficient excuse, a defendant fails to appear" for a scheduled court appearance. (Italics added.)² Allegheny, consistent with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal below, asserts that this statute imposes the dual requirement that (1) a judge declare forfeiture of bail in open court, and (2) a reporter's transcript reflect that this declaration was made in open court. The People assert the statute imposes only a declaration-in-open-court requirement.

As explained below, we conclude that a declaration of bail forfeiture must be made in open court, and of course the record also should reflect, in the minutes, the circumstance that forfeiture was ordered. (See Gov.Code, § 69844 [minutes reflecting any "order, judgment" or "decree" of the court are to be prepared "forthwith"]; see generally 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Courts, § 373, at pp. 444-445.) Although it is better practice for the minutes to reflect further that the declaration of forfeiture was made in open court, section 1305(a) does not require the record to reflect that this occurred in open court.

A

"`"[A]s with any statute, we strive to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent."` [Citations.] `Because statutory language "generally provide[s] the most reliable indicator" of that intent [citations], we turn to the words themselves, giving them their "usual and ordinary meanings" and construing them in context [citation].' [Citation.] If the language contains no ambiguity, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs. [Citation.] If, however, the statutory language is susceptible of more than one reasonable construction, we can look to legislative history in aid of ascertaining legislative intent. [Citation.]" (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1106, 1111, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 120, 5 P.3d 176.)

The term "open court" typically is understood to refer to nothing more or less than a hearing or trial held in a courtroom from which the public is not excluded. (See generally NBC Subsidiary (KNBCTV, Inc.) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 980 P.2d 337; People v. Valenzuela (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 826, 831, 66 Cal.Rptr. 825.) By this common understanding of the term, the statute's requirement that the judge "in open court declare forfeited the undertaking of bail" is fully satisfied by such a statement made orally by the judge in the courtroom, while it is open to members of the public.

As noted, Allegheny insists we should read the statute as imposing an additional requirement that a reporter's transcript (or, apparently, at least the court's minutes) reflect that the declaration was made in open court. The statutory language chosen by the Legislature, however, does not support this construction. Matters or events may occur in open court and yet not be reflected in a reporter's transcript (even assuming a court reporter is present) or in the minutes — some events that occur in open court simply are not recorded by a reporter or memorialized by a court clerk. Likewise, matters may be reflected in a reporter's transcript or in the minutes without transpiring in open court — when, for example, proceedings take place in a session properly closed to the public or held in chambers. We believe that had the Legislature intended to impose, in addition to the declaration-in-open-court requirement, a further condition that the record (that is, the minutes and, if available, a reporter's transcript) reflect the circumstance that the declaration occurred in open court, that body would have employed words to such effect, instead of the words set forth in the statute.

B

Allegheny insists, nevertheless, that section 1305(a) is ambiguous, and that the history of the provision supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended to require that a bail forfeiture declaration, made by a judge in open court, also be reflected in a reporter's transcript or at least in the minutes. We doubt that the statute is ambiguous but in any event, as explained below, find that the legislative history supports the conclusion we reach and not that urged by Allegheny.

The requirement that forfeiture be declared "in open court" did not exist in the statute until it was revised in 1998. (Stats. 1998, ch. 223, § 2.) Events leading to that change shed light on the evident purpose underlying the amendment.

In People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 353, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 115 (Ranger), a surety sought to discharge a bail forfeiture on the ground that its agents had been present in the courtroom and observed that the criminal defendant for whom they had provided bail had failed to appear, but the agents also observed that the judge failed to declare forfeiture in open court. (Id., at pp. 355-356, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 115.) The surety argued that the then existing version of section 1305(a) (Stats. 1979, ch. 873, § 10.5, p. 3041) required a trial court to declare forfeiture of bail in open court. The appellate court in Ranger disagreed, finding no such requirement in the 1979 version of the statute and concluding instead that simple notation of the forfeiture in the minutes was sufficient. (Id, at pp. 356-357, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d...