Municipal Charges Changed from Hearing to Trial

[fastline]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: KS

I requested a variance to park some vehicles inside a small city. The variance was granted but apparently the term differed from the term requested. After the time elapsed, a written notice was sent to indicate a violation of the variance. 7 days later a ticket was issued citing a "violation of the variance". At the hearing, the judge, nor I knew what the number was on the ticket (now know it was a variance number) so the judge indicated a charge of "illegal parking" per the city code book in which I was not in violation of. I entered a plea of not guilty. At trial, the city first attacked the illegal parking and when the realized they had no ground, the charge shifted to a "variance violation" in which I still cannot find any codes to indicate fines and such. I was found guilty.

I filed for appeal to district court and picked up the judgment ledger from the city. It indicates guilty of of the illegal parking per code (which I am not guilty of) and also indicates that I plead guilty in which I did not. I have a list of procedural concerns as well as questions on the actual charge which still does not make sense. I am curious if it is typical for a municipal court to change charges mid trial?

Procedural concerns are this:

1. Per the zoning code, any decisions made will be sent in writing to the application within 40 days. I never received a copy of the variance from the city, thus a misunderstanding of the terms.
2. Per the zoning code, any violation of any code will be sent in writing to the defendant with 15days from mailing to correct the error before further legal action is taken.
3. Written notice was eventually sent but ticket was sent 7 days after written notice. Written notice of violation was received 12/8, ticket was received 12/14
4. Ticket was post marked 12/14 but ticket date indicates 11/25 which could be a back dated ticket.

I have appealed on the grounds of a list of procedural concerns. The city honors state statute. I am most concerned with how the charge seemed to change during the trial and differs from the judgment ledger.

[Mr. Knowitall]

We don't have the information necessary to analyze your case - you don't even appear to know your conviction charge. I suggest having a local lawyer who handles appeals review the court file.

[fastline]

Conviction charge indicates "illegal parking of trucks in residential areas". No ordinance number or anything. This differs greatly from the "offense" on the ticket.

[Conrad Hunter]

You must appeal. This is bogus. Is there a hearing transcript? Municipal hearings are the worse. You can neither be convicted of something or found liable for something that was not alleged and which you had no notice of.

First, a municipal ordinance violation is NON CRIMINAL. It is CIVIL. You are NOT convicted of a civil violation. You are found liable. You can not be FINED. It is a civil forfeiture. A fine is criminal punishment.

If you were fined, then you were derived of property without due process, and I would argue that Constitutional violation too.

If it was a crime you would have had the right to have an attorney appointed, etc.

This is a real pet peeve and I have a civil case in Florida that is dealing with something like this, as well as a related appeal in the 3rd DCA.

You should have gotten the court record BEFORE filing an appeal. I would have tried to get the record corrected before filing the appeal. You probably have enough legally, but you missed the opportunity to get correct evidence into the appeal. Appeals courts of any type do not look at new evidence. You can't generally file an affidavit in any appeals court to supplement the record.

However, I would get an attorney or you should personally research if there is any way in your state to supplement the record on an appeal from a municipal court. The affidvait is not to argue the law, you do that in a legal brief. The purpose is to correct the record that you did NOT plead guilty.

I would also want to get all that criminal sounding language out of the municipal record and would also argue in the appeal for an order preventing that court from using that language in any case in the future.