No Response to Request for TBD

[Webbsurfer]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California. My spouse was cited for driving 80 MPH in a 65 area in Stockton. Her court appearance date was set for 4/5/2012. On 3/29/2012, the following was mailed to the San Joaquin court:

-A written request pleading not guilty, waving arraignment, and requesting a trial by written declaration.
-A check for the full bail amount as stated on the courtesy notice.

These items were sent via certified mail, with a signed receipt from the clerk dated 4/2. Furthermore, we have a copy of the cashed check from the court. However, we don't have any response from the court of any other kind.

I stumbled across this today: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cms/rule...nkid=rule4_210 , specifically rule 4.210.b.2:

(2)Extending due date

If the clerk receives the defendant's written request for a trial by written declaration by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear, the clerk must, within 15 calendar days after receiving the defendant's written request, extend the appearance date 25 calendar days and must give or mail notice to the defendant of the extended due date on the Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) with a copy of the Instructions to Defendant (form TR-200) and any other required forms.

As every rule has been followed to a T on our end, do we have a case for dismissal?

[That Guy]

the following was mailed to the San Joaquin court:

-A written request pleading not guilty, waving arraignment, and requesting a trial by written declaration.
-A check for the full bail amount as stated on the courtesy notice.

Most courtesy notices warn AGAINST doing anything like ^this^ and instead, simply say to check the box on the tear-off/bottom portion of the notice and send it that way!

Her court appearance date was set for 4/5/2012. On 3/29/2012, the following was mailed to the San Joaquin court:

....

These items were sent via certified mail, with a signed receipt from the clerk dated 4/2. Furthermore, we have a copy of the cashed check from the court. However, we don't have any response from the court of any other kind.

And you waited 25 days (over 3 weeks) past her appearance date -OR- 10 days past the 15 days allowed for the clerk before the forms are sent to the defendant because..... What?

I stumbled across this today: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cms/rule...nkid=rule4_210 , specifically rule 4.210.b.2:

(2)Extending due date

If the clerk receives the defendant's written request for a trial by written declaration by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear, the clerk must, within 15 calendar days after receiving the defendant's written request, extend the appearance date 25 calendar days and must give or mail notice to the defendant of the extended due date on the Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) with a copy of the Instructions to Defendant (form TR-200) and any other required forms.

I don't see anything mandating that the court must dismiss if an error (by whom? is difficult to establish with the info provided) is made. So no, don't get your hopes too high! The most that will happen is the error will be corrected, she will receive her forms and the matter will continue as originally intended.

But before any of that will happen, she has to contact the court -ASAP- to ask about what happened and to make the correct request for a TBD.



My guess is that the department receiving the bulk court returns (mail) including your wife's letter opened the envelope, did not see the usual "tear-off/bottom portion of the notice", (they aren't going to sit there reading letters) tossed the letter in the trash, accepted the check as fine payment and the case was closed with the fine amount paid via "bail forfeiture". It can be corrected but MUST be addressed IMMEDIATELY!

[Webbsurfer]

Thanks for the response! To clarify a few comments:

4/5/12 was the date written on her ticket. We waited 7 days prior to this date to mail in all of the paperwork I mentioned.

I should've mentioned the yes, their courtesy notice was completed and returned as well (and as requested). They also requested that a letter be submitted pleading not guilty and explicitly requesting the TBD.

And a quick check of her DMV record shows nothing. Furthermore, our car insurance bill just came in with a clean driving record.

Before even trying to correct whatever is going on, can it hurt to motion for dismissal IOJ referencing the court's rules. I mean, if the worst thing that can happen is we're out $5 in postage and they say no, what's to lose?

[That Guy]

4/5/12 was the date written on her ticket. We waited 7 days prior to this date to mail in all of the paperwork I mentioned.

I realize that...

I should've mentioned the yes, their courtesy notice was completed and returned as well (and as requested). They also requested that a letter be submitted pleading not guilty and explicitly requesting the TBD.

I would love to see the wording of that letter (simply because requesting a "letter" has other implied consequences that are part of the TBD though certain disclosures must be made prior to requesting a written plea), so if you have the ability to scan it or take a pictures of it, then upload it to a web hosting service like www.photobucket.com and provide the link here, it would be great.

The fact that you included a letter AND the tear off portion of the courtesy notice, would imply 3 possibilities:

1. In theory, a TBD request need only be a partially filled Form TR-205 along with a bail check. (Incidentally, this is described in the subsection that immediately follows the one you cited in your original post - See 4.210(b)(3)). That is pursuant to VC 40902 and the court rules which you've already seen. In this case, the portions marked as "to be completed by clerk" on the TR-205 form are filled in, a due date is noted on the form and it is mailed back to the defendant.
   
2. There is also a different procedure which is used to enter a plea of "not guilty", which when received by the clerk the defendant is then scheduled for an arraignment and in court trial on the same date unless the defendant requests a separate arraignment... And that is offered pursuant to VC 40519. In this case, I would assume that a notice of the date of the appearance is mailed back to the defendant.
   
3. Then there is also a third possibility which might occur if when a "letter" is received, follows the procedure I outlined in my last post... The check is deposited as "fine paid", case is closed and nothing is mailed back to the defendant.

Since you have not received notice as would be expected in (1) or (2), the safe assumption at this point in time is that (3) occurred. But I've been wrong before, I could be wrong again!

And a quick check of her DMV record shows nothing. Furthermore, our car insurance bill just came in with a clean driving record.

Depending on what transpired or the procedure the case went through, the DMV notice from the court could be required in 5 days for some court actions or up to 20 days for others and this is not too far off from that. And insurers do not always check driving records at every billing date.

With or without that, what difference does it make if the DMV record shows something or if the insurance premium came in higher... How does that change the fact that your wife has received no communication from the court regarding her request for a TBD?

One thing you could have checked which may give you a clue on what transpired is to check the status of the csse on line at the court's website. Often times the status descriptions used by the courts create more confusion that the do clarification, so unless and until she speaks to a live person who can tell her the status and where her case stands, all of this is speculation!

Before even trying to correct whatever is going on, can it hurt to motion for dismissal IOJ referencing the court's rules.

Which court rule are you speaking of that offers dismissal as a remedy for an error, a misunderstanding or a delay in the TBD process?

Don't go looking for one because there aren't any! Instead, what you will find is the exact opposite;

See

California Rule of Court # 4.210

(c) Due dates and time limits

Due dates and time limits must be as stated in this rule, unless changed or extended by the court. The court may extend any date, but the court need not state the reasons for granting or denying an extension on the record or in the minutes.
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

I mean, if the worst thing that can happen is we're out $5 in postage and they say no, what's to lose?

Go for it then... Good luck, and please, let us know how it turns out!