Statute of Limitations on Misdemeanor Failure to Appear

[cymbalta]

what is the statute of limitations in california on an arrest warrant for failure to appear in court for a misdemeanor battery? i am now living out of state. thanks.

[aaron]

There is none. Once you are charged, the statute of limitations stops running.

[cymbalta]

OK, but exactly what does that mean??? is there a limit on the amount of time before the whole thing is dropped? after all, it is a MISDEMEANOR. what is the statute of limtitations of THAT? thanks again.

[seniorjudge]

Q: OK, but exactly what does that mean??? is there a limit on the amount of time before the whole thing is dropped? after all, it is a MISDEMEANOR. what is the statute of limtitations of THAT? thanks again.

A: You commit a crime. It is a misdemeanor. The government has one year to file it. That is called a statute of limitation. The charge is filed. The statute stops running. An arrest warrant is issued. The arrest warrant never dies. I issued one thirty years ago that is still good!

[cymbalta]

A: You commit a crime.

What ever happened to the presumtion of innocence??
In fact, there was no crime, only a false accusation of an offence so incredibly TINY I'd be embarassed to even mention it. But the charge says "Battery." So what was the alleged weapon? A club? A baseball bat? Maybe my fists? Try *saliva.* And this was after two years of enduring the "victim's" three barking dogs waking me up in the middle of the night. I must have called the cops three dozen times, yet at the end of two years NOTHING had changed one iota. Her accusation was malicious revenge for daring to complain. So who was the real victim here? Why did the DA even prosecute this, you might ask? Well, if you know, please tell me -- I have no idea. The best my lawyer could do was bargain it down to a $10,000 fine and community service! FOR WHAT!
This is not law, it's persecution and a disgrace to the law.

[aaron]

Spitting on somebody is a battery.

[jk]

What ever happened to the presumtion of innocence??

The fact they did not simply throw you in jail for the prescirbed amount of time available as a sentence for this type of battery shows the presumption of innocence. The fact you were to be given an opportunity to defend against the charges shows the presumption of innocence.

The fact you failed to do so goes a long way in showing your acceptance of the guilt (although this does not prove it in court).

You had the opportunity to actually go to court to defend against this and apparently failed to do so. You do not have to accept a plea agreement if you do not wish to.

Have some comfort that many state (hopefully California) will not extradite for such a misdemeanor if you are detained due to another states police discovering the warrant but it can screw with you a LOT each time you are stopped for a traffic ticket or any other minimal illegal action.

[cdwjava]

What ever happened to the presumtion of innocence??

You have to actually go to court to assert that right. Fleeing the jurisdiction sort of compels the state to hunt you down ... thus, they issue an arrest warrant.

In fact, there was no crime, only a false accusation of an offence so incredibly TINY I'd be embarassed to even mention it. ... Try *saliva.*

If it's no big deal, then go to court and resolve it. Running only makes you look guilty. As you were told, spitting IS battery in CA. In fact, had you been diagnised with a serious and communicable disease it could be a felonious assault.

- Carl

[rdillon]

Since he is living out of state, can he write a letter explaing his entire situation, pay a fine for not appearing to California to try to get this resolved, instead of going to California? I mean if this person went to California, they may put him in jail and then everything of his current life will be messed up? How long ago did it happen? It seems there should be a time limit that the court/judge takes into consideration and your new life as well.

[aardvarc]

Since he is living out of state, can he write a letter explaing his entire situation, pay a fine for not appearing to California to try to get this resolved, instead of going to California?

The entire purpose of a warrant is to make a person appear before the court. It has nothing to do with a fine - he hasn't even BEEN to court yet, much less found guilty or punished to the payment of any possible fine.

I mean if this person went to California, they may put him in jail and then everything of his current life will be messed up?

Yep. That's kind of the idea. The court gave him an order, he gave the court the finger and didn't appear. It never gets BETTER after that. Courts aren't Kidding and judges MEAN it when they say "be there".,

How long ago did it happen?

Irrelevent, since the SOL isn't running.

It seems there should be a time limit that the court/judge takes into consideration and your new life as well.

Doesn't work that way. It's not fair to society as a whole or to any specific victim of a crime that someone should "get off the hook" just because they've been able to evade arrest, and have decided to move on with their lives. When you decide that you're ready to do away with accountability for crimes just because it's inconvenient for criminals (or those accused of criminal activity and arrested with probable cause) to have to go to court, do write that letter to your Congressman.