3 Errors on My Ticket

[klarsen]

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: California
I got a ticket for modified emissions(27156b) and no front plate(5200vc). The ticket had the wrong road. The location was "49 E/W" the officer put "140 N/S", my last name was spelled wrong. I did have a front plate. I went to court, I beat the front plate ticket because of the wrong vc number, it should have been vc5201. I lost the emissions part and I went after all of the errors. Now I'm appealing the ticket, is their anything I can say about the wrong road and put all the other errors to make my argument stronger?

[blewis]

I don't know that much about CA law, specifically, but I think the appeals process is similar to ours here in WA. Basically, an appeal is NOT a new trial. It is an appeal "on the record", meaning you must show where the court ERRED. For example, the court may have admitted testimony into evidence (over your objection) that should have been suppressed, or overruled an objection that should have been sustained.

You cannot appeal simply because you didn't like the verdict (well, you can, but it won't get you very far). In your case, you would have to show that there was NOT sufficient evidence to prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". The court has already ruled that, in spite of the errors you brought up, there WAS sufficient evidence to support a conviction. In evaluating such a case, the appellate court will construe ALL evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.

You will NOT get to argue your "errors" all over again. You made the argument once. The trial court evaluated that argument and still found you guilty. So, unless the court did something like refuse to hear your arguments, and you can produce case law or other authority showing that the court erred in that refusal, I think you're out of luck.

Personally, I think you're "beating a dead horse", but it's your time and money.

Sorry for the bad news, but that's my opinion. Some others may disagree....

Barry

[That Guy]

I don't know that much about CA law, specifically, but I think the appeals process is similar to ours here in WA. Basically, an appeal is NOT a new trial. It is an appeal "on the record", meaning you must show where the court ERRED. For example, the court may have admitted testimony into evidence (over your objection) that should have been suppressed, or overruled an objection that should have been sustained.

You cannot appeal simply because you didn't like the verdict (well, you can, but it won't get you very far). In your case, you would have to show that there was NOT sufficient evidence to prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". The court has already ruled that, in spite of the errors you brought up, there WAS sufficient evidence to support a conviction. In evaluating such a case, the appellate court will construe ALL evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.

You will NOT get to argue your "errors" all over again. You made the argument once. The trial court evaluated that argument and still found you guilty. So, unless the court did something like refuse to hear your arguments, and you can produce case law or other authority showing that the court erred in that refusal, I think you're out of luck.

Personally, I think you're "beating a dead horse", but it's your time and money.

Sorry for the bad news, but that's my opinion. Some others may disagree....

Barry

I can't claim to be the "authority" on California law.... But I could NOT have said it better myself... Great post Barry :thumbs-up:

I will add that the error in spelling your name, will merely require a correction on the record; it does not by any means or description nullify the citation. As for the error in the street name, it is not an element of the offense charged (at least not as much as it would be for say, a speeding citation, for example). In other words, you were allegedly operating a vehicle on a public roadway with an illegally modified emission system and the location of the violation is not so much an element of the offense. So I can understand why the court ruled against your argument regarding the location error.

Lastly, as I am sure you are aware, VC 27156(b) is a correctable violation and as such, if it were me, I would have mitigated my damages by making the correction, submitting proof of the same to the court which would have resulted in an EASY dismissal and more importantly, it would have reduced the fine from (approximately) $446 to the $25 administrative fee that the court charges for the correction.

You're free to move forward with your appeal, although I wholeheartedly to agree with Barry's "dead horse" analogy.

[klarsen]

With a modified emissions (27156b) it is just not a $25 ticket it is around $350 that could not be reduced.

[That Guy]

With a modified emissions (27156b) it is just not a $25 ticket it is around $350 that could not be reduced.

it is obviously too late for you but I'll still post this for future reference, and for those who may stumble upon this thread for a similar violation:

Pursuant to VC 40522, an officer arresting for violations specified in Vehicle Code section 40303.5 is required to specify the offense charged and note in a form approved by the Judicial Council that the charge shall be dismissed upon proof of correction.

VC 40303.5. Whenever any person is arrested for any of the following offenses, the arresting officer shall permit the arrested person to execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation in accordance with the provisions of Section 40610 unless the arresting officer finds that any of the disqualifying conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section 40610 exist:

(a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000).
(b) Any driver's license infraction set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500), and subdivision (a) of Section 12951, relating to possession of driver's license.
(c) Section 21201, relating to bicycle equipment.
(d) Any infraction involving equipment set forth in Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), Division 13 (commencing with Section 29000), Division 14.8 (commencing with Section 34500), Division 16 (commencing with Section 36000), Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), and Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000).

VC 27156(b) is indeed listed under Division 12 (Chapter 5, "Article 2: Exhaust Systems").

Also, VC 40611 authorizes the court to accept the $25 administrative fee if/when proof of correction is submitted and accepted by the court.

There are exceptions (Also Known As "Disqualifying Conditions") to that which are listed under VC 40610(b) where the officer has the discretion to issue this as a "non-correctable" violation... Those conditions are:

1. Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect;
2. The violation presents an immediate safety hazard;
3. The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.

I bolded the words that "I" think may have caused the officer to issue this as a "non-correctable" violation.

However, and even if the officer issued it as a non-correctable violation, it is still up to the discretion of the court to accept the correction (had you attempted to take that path by bringing your vehicle up to code) and to dismiss the citation accordingly.

My guess is that the judge did not show you any sympathy with regards to your "error" argument due to your apparent defiance and your continuing to operate your vehicle in violation of that particular requirement, rather than make the correction and bring your vehicle up to code.

Point is, you could have tried... But you didn't...

Also keep in mind that if you get pulled over again, and assuming that the officer chooses to look into your driving record, (yes, he can, in fact, see that you have been cited and convicted in violation of 27156(b)), which may lead him to inspect your vehicle and if not corrected, he can issue you another citation for the same violation... And the more citations you get, the easier they can prove that the "persistent neglect" and "your refusal to promptly correct the violation" elements of 40610(b)(1) and (3) do in fact exist...

I realize that none of this is going to convince you to bring your exhaust/emission system up to code, but you should realize that you have opened up a can of worms that may get fairly expensive (at $350 a pop) as time goes by.

[klarsen]

I got this for a K&N cold air intake for not having a DOT sticker. I put the car back to stock before the time on the ticket was due. I found out just keep your car stock and don't add anything to it.

[That Guy]

I got this for a K&N cold air intake for not having a DOT sticker. I put the car back to stock before the time on the ticket was due. I found out just keep your car stock and don't add anything to it.

I would tend to think that it is too late for a correction at this point in time... You've already been tried and convicted.