People v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc., 102318 SUPAD, CA271359

Docket Nº:CA271359
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Attorney:Counsel for Appellant: Richard E. Madruga, DDA Counsel for Respondent: Matthew Singer
Judge Panel:CHARLES R. GILL, Presiding Judge, GALE E. KANESHIRO, Judge, HOWARD H. SHORE, Judge, Appellate Division
Case Date:October 23, 2018
Court:Superior Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

CA271359

Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, San Diego

October 23, 2018

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 Trial Court Case No.: CD269110, Leo Valentine, Jr., Judge. Following argument on October 18, 2018, this matter was taken under submission. AFFIRMED.

Counsel for Appellant: Richard E. Madruga, DDA

Counsel for Respondent: Matthew Singer

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP