People v. Black
| Decision Date | 31 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6760 |
| Citation | 358 P.2d 915,10 Cal.Rptr. 459,55 Cal.2d 275 |
| Parties | , 358 P.2d 915 PEOPLE of the State of California, Appellant, v. Arthur BLACK, Jr., Defendant, National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Thomas A. Porter, Long Beach, and Thomas W. Stoever, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for appellant.
John W. Anderson and Joseph Joblin, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the State of California from a nunc pro tunc order vacating a prior order of forfeiture of a bail bond following the defendant's failure to appear for sentencing after his plea of guilty to a felony in the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles.
The defendant, being charged with a felony, posted a bail bond in the amount of $1,500 written by the respondent National Automobile Casualty Insurance Co. The bond assured that the defendant 'will appear in the above-named court on the dates set forth to answer the complaint filed against him-her and all duly authorized amendments thereof, in whatever court it may be prosecuted, and will at all times hold him/herself amenable to the orders and process of the court, and, if convicted, will appear for pronouncement of judgment; or, if he/she fails to perform either of these conditions, that the National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co., a California corporation, will pay to the people of the State of California, the sum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00).
'If the forfeiture of this bond be ordered by the Court, judgment may be summarily made and entered forthwith against the said National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co., a California corporation, for the amount of its undertaking herein, as provided by Sections 1305 and 1306 of the California Penal Code.'
Section 1305 of the Penal Code provides that 'If, without sufficient excuse, the defendant neglects to appear for arraignment or for trial or judgment, or upon any other occasion when his presence in court is lawfully required * * * the court must direct the fact to be entered upon its minutes and the undertaking of bail * * * must thereupon be declared forfeited.' It further provides that 'if at any time within 90 days after such entry in the minutes, the defendant and his bail appear, and satisfactorily excuse the defendant's neglect or show to the satisfaction of the court that the absence of the defendant was not with the connivance of the bail, the court may direct the forfeiture of the undertaking or the deposit to be discharged upon such terms as may be just.'
Section 1306 provides for summary judgment upon the forfeited bond if the forfeiture is not set aside within the 90 day period provided in section 1305.
Following the defendant's failure to appear for pronouncement of judgment an order was made in open court on October 15, 1959, forfeiting bail and directing the issuance of a bench warrant. However it appears of record, pursuant to an oral stipulation made by the parties at the hearing herein, that the order of forfeiture was not entered in the permanent minutes until the 20th day of October, 1959. Thereafter the defendant was arrested and produced in court on December 24, 1959. On January 11, 1960, 88 days after the order of forfeiture was made in open court, the surety filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture and to exonerate bail. The motion was supported by the affidavits of the defendant and of an attorney-in-fact of the surety. It was heard on the same day it was filed, and was denied 'without prejudice' to make a further showing.
On January 14, 1960, 91 days after the making of the order of forfeiture in open court, but only 86 days after the entry thereof in the permanent minutes, the court made the following order, designated as nunc pro tunc as of January 11, 1960: It does not appear from the record what, if any, further documents had been filed prior to the making of the order. Thereafter, the county counsel of Los Angeles moved to set aside the nunc pro tunc order of January 14 and the motion was denied. This appeal is taken from said nunc...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coley
...could properly be exercised has expired. (In re Skerrett (1889) 80 Cal. 62, 63--64, 22 P. 85; and see People v. Black (1961) 55 Cal.2d 275, 277, 10 Cal.Rptr. 459, 358 P.2d 915.) The precedents developed under those provisions of section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relate to the......
-
People v. Landon White Bail Bonds, A051405
...a bail agent or solicitor such as White. Traditionally, however, the term referred to the issuer of the bond--the surety. (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 181.) In any case, we need not linger over the meaning conveyed by the term when it stands alone. The question here concerns the swe......
-
Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America
...a nunc pro tunc order.' " (68 Cal.2d at p. 102, 65 Cal.Rptr. 311, 436 P.2d 311, quoting with approval from People v. Black (1961) 55 Cal.2d 275, 277, 10 Cal.Rptr. 459, 358 P.2d 915.) The Bank claims that the trial court's power to state the ground or grounds for a new trial within 10 days a......
-
People v. Ranger Ins. Co.
...572.) Finally, the cases decided during "the early days of Section 1305," which appellant relies upon (People v. Black (1961) 55 Cal.2d 275, 10 Cal.Rptr. 459, 358 P.2d 915; People v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 380, 31 Cal.Rptr. 208; People v. National Auto. & Cas. Co. (1966) ......