Well, that whole rule is ambiguous in a lot of essential parts. As far as I see, though, the notice is sent on or shortly after the ORIGINAL appearance date which is what the rule defines as "due date.":
Now, it also says that when the clerk receives a written request, the "appearance date" must be extended by 25 days. However, three different sub-rules 2, 3 & 4 explicitly refer to this date as the extended due date, thus making a distinction between that and the original "due date."Quoting CRC 4.210(b)
I know that (5) implies the "due date" is when the clerk receives the form and the bail, while (4) allows bail to be submitted on the "extended due date", but we all know that courts demand the bail upfront when you request a TBD, in person or by mail.
I don't know about what goes on up north, but I know that around SoCal, at least, the TBD forms get sent out to both the officer and the defendant when the request/bail are made, and usually with the same date, i.e. the "return date" = "extended due date" = 25 days (usually).
Actually, 12/01 as the return date is listed in the TR-210 'subpoena' sent to the officer, in the docket AND in the court's official ruling of that day ("papers due by 12/01". And hey, 4.210(c) allows the court to change or extend any date, so I guess it's good
True, but the only case law around indicates that the court must ORDER the extension on the record (but no reason is needed). So absent an order in the docket/minutes, doesn't mean much.
With the benefit of some sleep, I conclude similarlySince the subpoena has NOT been received by the officer and he IS on vacation until well after the trial date, I doubt he'll submit and it's best to keep mum. I *think* that this commissioner decides TBDs in the courtroom at 3 PM, right after he concludes the 1:30 arraignment -- I may just show up to keep an eye on things. BTW, if the officer had missed the 12/01 date because of oversight though and were still around, I'd most definitely do the motion to exclude to nip it in the bud at this stage.


