Stopped for Speeding, 83 in a 65, Cited for VC 22349(A)

[newtoel]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of California, VC 22349(a).

I received the citation of speeding (83mph in a 65 mph zone) on highway 395 near Mono Lake. On the citation the appearance date is 12/19. I just received the notice of bail from the court two days ago. On the bail notice the appearance date is pushed back to beginning of Jan 2012. I called the clerk and the automatic voice said that all traffic citations are automatically extended by two weeks due to technical problems. It conforms to the date on the bail notice. Anyway, I still talked with the clerk over the phone and she extended it to the end of Jan 2012.

I have done Trial by Written Declaration twice in the past and won both cases. However I understand that citation of VC 22349(a) is very hard to fight. So I would like to ask for some insights on the strategy of this citation.

First, a really stupid question. Can I still request trial by written declaration this time? I remember that last time, I was in similar situation that I received the notice pretty late close to the date on the citation. Fortunately I lived close to the court. So I went there directly and submit the request. But this time I live 5 hours away from the court. And I do not think I can go to the court before 12/19. Now the appearance date on the bail notice is in Jan 2012. I assume that is the deadline for me to submit my TBWD request? I just to want to make sure that I can legally do so.

Second, since VC 22349(a) is very hard to fight, I am preparing for the worst. If I was found guilty for TBWD, I would like to ask for traffic school to avoid appearing in the court since it is too far away from where I am living. I have a completely clean record in the past of my driving history. I am wondering if the judge will give me this opportunity? If not, I understand that I can go to TDN, but is there any way to avoid appear in the court on TDN? It is hard for me to travel to the court before May 2012 since the highway is closed due to snow.

Appreciate any comments and insights!

[Mr. Knowitall]

This is in what county? Somebody here may be familiar with the county's practices.

[That Guy]

First, a really stupid question. Can I still request trial by written declaration this time?

What does the courtesy notice say?

But this time I live 5 hours away from the court. And I do not think I can go to the court before 12/19. Now the appearance date on the bail notice is in Jan 2012. I assume that is the deadline for me to submit my TBWD request? I just to want to make sure that I can legally do so.

Different courts may interpret this rule differently...

So, call the court and ask the clerk if the deadline to request a TBD, the appearance date indicated on the Notice to
Appear, or is the date of appearance on the notice to appear or the extension date?

Second, since VC 22349(a) is very hard to fight, I am preparing for the worst. If I was found guilty for TBWD, I would like to ask for traffic school to avoid appearing in the court since it is too far away from where I am living. I have a completely clean record in the past of my driving history. I am wondering if the judge will give me this opportunity?

Some judges may, others may not... Even a judge who normally does, may refuse it at times, and the opposite is true! Roll the dice and take your chance, or go for the guaranteed shot and be done with it!

If not, I understand that I can go to TDN, but is there any way to avoid appear in the court on TDN? It is hard for me to travel to the court before May 2012 since the highway is closed due to snow.

If you request a TDN, you are expected to appear. You do not appear, you may be found guilty.

And the highway is closed overnight, not indefinitely!

From the Caltrans website:

This highway information is the latest reported as of Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 23:55 .


US 395
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
NO TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS ARE REPORTED FOR THIS AREA.

[IN THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AREA & SIERRA NEVADA]
NO TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS ARE REPORTED FOR THIS AREA.

[IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
1-WAY CONTROLLED TRAFFIC AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FROM 1 MI SOUTH OF MILFORD
/AT MILFORD GRADE RD/ TO 8.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 36 /AT JANESVILLE RD/
(LASSEN CO) FROM 0700 TO 1530 HRS MONDAY THRU THURSDAY THRU 12/22/11 - DUE TO
MAINTENANCE

1-WAY CONTROLLED TRAFFIC AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FROM 2.7 MI SOUTH TO 3.3 MI
NORTH OF VIEWLAND (LASSEN CO) FROM 0700 HRS TO 1530 HRS MONDAY TO FRIDAY THRU
12/23/11 - DUE TO MAINTENANCE

[quirkyquark]

Anyway, I still talked with the clerk over the phone and she extended it to the end of Jan 2012.

Don't trust that unless you've gotten something in writing from the court OR you can see on the website, etc. that the appearance date has been extended.

I assume that is the deadline for me to submit my TBWD request?

Usually, latest possible appearance date is the deadline to submit TBD request. But double check as TG suggested because if your court swings the other way, getting them to correct the mistake from this far away will be near-impossible. Use this form letter for best results you are mailing in the request.

---

(newtoel: this discussion may not make much sense to you; don't worry!)

What does the courtesy notice say?
So, call the court and ask the clerk if the deadline to request a TBD, the appearance date indicated on the Notice to
Appear, or is the date of appearance on the notice to appear or the extension date?

This goes back to how ambiguously written Rule 4.210 is. Witness:

(b) Procedure

(1)Definition of due date: As used in this subdivision, "due date" means the last date on which the defendant's appearance is timely. [that would usually be the courtesy notice date, right?]

(2)[Definition of] Extend[ed] due date: If the clerk receives the defendant's written request ... by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear, the clerk must, ... extend the appearance date 25 calendar days...

(3)Election: The defendant must file a Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) with the clerk by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear or the extended due date...

(4)Bail: The defendant must deposit bail with the clerk by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear or the extended due date...

(5)Instructions to arresting officer: If the clerk receives the defendant's Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) and bail by the due date... [last timely appearance date...huh?]

I think all that confusion is because courtesy notices are extra-legislative/extra-judicial creatures...

[That Guy]

This goes back to how ambiguously written Rule 4.210 is.

Does "ambiguously written" infer knowledge of the same by the writer? If so, I would agree; if not, I might suggest "indecisively written" leaving it for each court to decide!

I think all that confusion is because courtesy notices are extra-legislative/extra-judicial creatures...

Actually, I think they are beneficial in the least for providing a bail amount since there is no legal requirement to give that on the notice to appear. And in those rare instances where the citation maybe filed late, the automated courtesy notice will serve as the notification to the defendant of his/her new appearance date, which, IMO would work much better than either leaving it up to the defendant to keep checking with the court or assuming that the clerks will take on the responsibility of manually mailing a notice of a new appearance date to the defendant.

I think you missed one reference to "due date"... We typically only look as far as subsection (c) of 4.210... I just glanced farther down and saw subsection (d)...

(d) Ineligible defendants

If the defendant requests a trial by written declaration and the clerk or the court determines that the defendant is not eligible for a trial by written declaration, the clerk must extend the due date 25 calendar days and notify the defendant by mail of the determination and due date.

So even though the TBD is rejected, and there will be no subsequent "due date" for a TBD they still refer to the extended date by which you have to "appear or pay" (no other choice) as the due date... So even though you missed the due date, the TBD request was rejected and now the due date is 25 days later than the due date before but they make no effort to differentiate "the due date" from "the due date"!!!!

Are they really that much smarter than us?


Anyways, and aside from a court rejecting it based upon a filing of a request AFTER a 30 day or 60 day extension thereby deeming the request as untimely for not being submitted on or before the date on the notice to appear, I cannot think of one single reason... (At least they're kind enough to still extend the due date (or as I would then refer to it as "the appear or pay date".


Can you think of one circumstance why/when the defendant is ineligible for a TBD?