Can You Get Your Case Dismissed if a Court Doesn't Immediately Schedule the Hearing

[BonnieMac]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Arizona

Last month I appeared in person to the court clerk to enter my denial and request for a hearing. The court clerk stamped my request with the date and time, gave me a copy, and told me that I would receive a notice of hearing in the mail. I was under the impression that a hearing date is supposed to be scheduled "upon receipt" of the request for a hearing....based on the wording of Rule 10 of the Civil Traffic Court Procedures.

I did finally receive my court date for next month, after waiting nearly month for them to mail a notice of hearing. My questions:

Is this procedural error enough reason to file a motion to dismiss? And if so,

On what specific grounds?

Thanks for any help with this.

[BonnieMac]

Rule 10(b):
The defendant may deny responsibility by appearing in person or by notifying the court in writing. The defendant may, at the same time, tender the civil sanction listed in the court's deposit schedule for civil traffic violations to insure that no driver's license suspension will result from failure to appear. Upon receipt of said notice, the court shall set the matter for hearing and notify the defendant of the date, time, and place for the hearing.

Here in Navajo County apparently the court clerks double as CTHO's, so yes, they can and do set matters for hearing upon request.

As it happens, I received two citations in one week, in two different local cities (gotta love those artificially low speed limits). One court clerk immediately scheduled my hearing upon receipt of my denial and request for hearing...the other did not.

Does that clarify things a bit better? I appreciate your response, thank you.

[blewis]

You seem to be reading "upon receipt" as meaning "at the moment of receipt". But, that's not what the law states. In my opinion "upon receipt of said notice" means that they simply cannot schedule you for a hearing BEFORE they receive your notice. The rule does NOT state a time frame. For example, in WA, the court rule states:

(2) The court shall send the defendant written notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing within 21 days of the receipt of the request for a hearing.

But, even with THAT specification, if you don't receive the notice within 21 days, it's still NOT grounds for dismissal.

Barry

[BonnieMac]

I see, thank you blewis.

It just seems like an excessively long time to wait for a requested hearing...63 days after my request. From what I gather then, this court could wait months to schedule my hearing?

Things were so much simpler when it was criminal, civil procedures are so confusing to me

[blewis]

Several states have "speedy trial" rules even for infraction hearings. CA has a 45 day rule (from the arraignment to the hearing) and WA has a 120 day rule (from the date of the infraction). I don't know about AZ, but you should be able to look that up.

Barry

[BonnieMac]

Yes, I did do some research but wasn't able to find a specific time limit, only the Rule 10 stuff in Civil Procedures. Guess I'll just keep digging. Fortunately, I'm not hanging my case on this issue but it would have been nice to just get it dropped altogether