My question involves traffic court in the State of: California
I was cited for 22356(b), exceeding the max speed limit of 70 on 1-10 in Riverside. I understand this is hard to win. Nonetheless, I submitted a TBWD after seeking an extension, the date to appear was moved to 11/28 and I filed & submitted my TR-205 in time. Traffic court is not an option for me due to prior tickets. My arraignment was pushed back to 12/8 and the my declaration was received and filed on the same date (12/8). The officer was supposed to return his declaration by 1/3/2012 and the trail is set for 1/9 (tomorrow). The case minutes show that his declaration was received and filed on 1/5, after the 1/3 deadline.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.210(b)(5), After receipt of the officer's declaration, or at the close of the officer's return date (1/3) if no officer's declaration is filed, the clerk must submit the case file with all declarations and other evidence received to the court for decision.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 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.
I have a several of questions here:
It seems that the officer missed the window so the clerk should of submitted the case WITHOUT the officer's declaration to the court on 1/3 right? Does (b)(5) give leeway to allow the clerk to file the officer's declaration even though the officer was 2 days late? In other words is section (b)(5) interpreted as the latter of EITHER the receipt of the declaration OR close of the officer's return date? The wording of the minutes makes it seem as if the clerk willingly accepted and filed the declaration. What's the point of (b)(5) then if the prosecution can submit after the due date and can have it's declaration accepted all the way up to the trial date?
Is it possible that he submitted the stuff on time on 1/3, but the court just was slow in recording it, hence the 1/5 date? How would I know, is the a time date stamp of when the clerk of the court receives it?
If the court did extend the date for the officer under rule 4.210(c), I understand that it does not have to PROVIDE a reason. However, does it have to RECORD such a decision anywhere in the minutes? How does one actually know if the court did grant such an extension?
The case is tomorrow and I will not be able to attend because I am 500 miles away. I'm presuming that the court will review his accept his declaration any ways and find me guilty. However, if I were present, would I be able to file a motion to exclude? I know I can file a TDN, and the outcome is likely to be the same given he shows up at the TDN. Would there be a case for appeal (assuming I lose the TDN) due to the fact that the court was supposed to submit the case on 1/3 but allow the testimony to be admitted after the 1/3 deadline?
Here are the minutes and actions:
01/09/2012 8:30 AM DEPT. 260 TRIAL BY DECLARATION (COURT TRIAL-NON APPEARANCE)
01/05/2012 DECLARATION OF FACTS FROM OFFICER RECEIVEDAND FILED.
12/08/2011 DECLARATION OF FACTS FROM DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND FILED.
12/08/2011 DATE-TO-APPEAR CHANGE FROM 11/28/11 TO01/09/12
12/08/2011 3:14 PM DEPT. 260 TRIAL BY DECLARATION - ARRAIGNMENT DISPOSED ARRAIGNMENT
DEFENDANT WAIVES INITIAL ARRAIGNMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 40519 VC
TRIAL BY DECLARATION - ARRAIGNED. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF NOT GUILTY PLEA AND THAT MATTER BE SET FOR COURT TRIAL AND ARRAIGNMENT AS INDICATED BELOW. PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO COUNT(S) 1.
TRIAL BY DECLARATION SET 01/09/2012 @ 8:30 IN DEPT. 260.
DECLARATION OF FACTS FORMS MAILED TO OFFICER(S) AND DEFENDANT TO BE RETURNED BY 01/03/2012.
CASH BAIL CONTINUED.
DATE TO APPEAR IS CONTINUED TO 01/09/2012