Stop Sign Violation, VC 22450(A)

[That Guy]

The action of the commissioner (and I believe it to be a commissioner and not a judge because of the fact that he allowed a plea to an offense not included in the charges) could be unlawful.

I agree! The court amending the charge on its own motion would be an unlawful act... And so I would probably lean more towards it being simply a figment of the OP's imagination!

By the way, this is what the OP offered in his first post:

My mom has posted bail and has a speedy trial date set for January 2nd.

He returned to post his long rant on 2/1/2013 but mentioned nothing about "partial success"; it was only yesterday that he made up the story about his Mom apparently combining her Sunday confession with her Friday court trial, admitting she is not perfect... and blah, blah, blah...

This is 38 days after the date his Mom's trial was scheduled for?

And to assume that either side would have requested a continuance without us having to watch one big huge production about it... Not gonna happen. So OP either made up the January date, or his Mom had her day in court in January and he's just coming around to making up the story.

In fact, today is day 58 from the date he started this thread; I don't see how it would be unusual if she'd had her first appearance date scheduled for 60 or so days from the date of the citation... This would imply that OP's Mom only just had her arraignment yesterday. And then the officer was not there as he's claimed. This is further supported by OP's lack of whining about what the officer testified to and how his mom disagreed.

The officer is generally not given the opportunity to respond to comments and pleas made by the offenders to the court. I suspect that the officer's account included only his rendition of events concerning the detention and the violation and, unless asked by the court, he was unable to provide any context or input on your mother's oratory.

There would be no point in him responding... In fact my guess is if OP's Mom did attempt to go on her rant in court, it wasn't long before the judge would have cut her off simply because she was not "testifying" or offering a defense, in addition to there being no point or purpose for what she supposedly was ranting about...

[cdwjava]

Some courts will grant elderly folks a little leeway. If mom was an otherwise sympathetic figure, the commissioner may have allowed her to ramble on for a minute or two.

From experience, I can tell you that there are often comments made by the defendant when presenting their case that the officer wants to respond to. Unfortunately, unless asked by the court, the officer must stand silent.

[Alleged Speeder]

Quoting cdwjava
________________________________________

The action of the commissioner (and I believe it to be a commissioner and not a judge because of the fact that he allowed a plea to an offense not included in the charges) could be unlawful.
I agree! The court amending the charge on its own motion would be an unlawful act... And so I would probably lean more towards it being simply a figment of the OP's imagination!

That Guy, I was there as an observer in the courtroom watching her trial with the officer present on February 6, two days before my last post, so it was not a figment of my imagination. Yes, it was a commissioner who ruled on my mom’s case.

By the way, this is what the OP offered in his first post:
Quoting Alleged Speeder
________________________________________

My mom has posted bail and has a speedy trial date set for January 2nd.
He returned to post his long rant on 2/1/2013 but mentioned nothing about "partial success"; it was only yesterday that he made up the story about his Mom apparently combining her Sunday confession with her Friday court trial, admitting she is not perfect... and blah, blah, blah...

This is 38 days after the date his Mom's trial was scheduled for?

And to assume that either side would have requested a continuance without us having to watch one big huge production about it... Not gonna happen. So OP either made up the January date, or his Mom had her day in court in January and he's just coming around to making up the story.

In fact, today is day 58 from the date he started this thread; I don't see how it would be unusual if she'd had her first appearance date scheduled for 60 or so days from the date of the citation... This would imply that OP's Mom only just had her arraignment yesterday. And then the officer was not there as he's claimed. This is further supported by OP's lack of whining about what the officer testified to and how his mom disagreed.

That Guy, you stated I returned to post my “long rant” on 2/1/2013 but I mentioned nothing about my mom’s partial success. First, I apologize that I left out very key information to update people on my mom’s case in my 2/1 post and I regret I confused you and others by failing to give the updates. In my thoroughness in responding to posters here on February 1, I failed to let posters know that the officer asked for a continuance from the January 2nd court date to a later date in January; since the later date in January was on a day when my mom works, she requested a continuance and the trial was set for February 6, the actual day my mom’s trial occurred and two days before my last post here. I’m not clear why you state I posted a long “rant” in my 2/1 post. In my 2/1 post or posts, I first thanked people for posting their input. After that, I responded to individual posters where I in large part agreed with the statements of other posters. Other than agreeing with posters, I made comments clarifying information, such as my incorrect assumption that it often takes only 7 days for a person to receive a courtesy notice or your incorrect assumption that it takes a minimum of 21 days for someone to receive a courtesy notice, since each court and police department is different. Again, I’m not clear about how my post of 2/1 was a “rant.”

Also, your comment where you said “And to assume that either side would have requested a continuance without us having to watch one big huge production about it... Not gonna happen” is incorrect. I not only did not make a huge production about the officer’s and my mom’s continuances but I failed to mention them, unfortunately confusing you and other posters here. It is unclear to me why you would assume I would make a big production about the cop and/or my mom getting a court date re-set. Your statement “This would imply that OP's Mom only just had her arraignment yesterday. And then the officer was not there as he's claimed. This is further supported by OP's lack of whining about what the officer testified to and how his mom disagreed” is also incorrect. I apologize that my failing to post the key information in my February 1 post about the re-settings of my mom’s court date to February 6 has lead you to believe I have been making up stories and lying. My mom never had an arraignment, only a court trial on February 6, two days before I last posted in this thread. Again, I observed my mom’s trial on February 6 with the officer sitting next to her and testifying. It is also unclear why you think I would be whining about the officer’s testimony if I observed him testify at the trial, which I did. I don’t feel a need to whine about his testimony.

Quoting cdwjava
________________________________________

The officer is generally not given the opportunity to respond to comments and pleas made by the offenders to the court. I suspect that the officer's account included only his rendition of events concerning the detention and the violation and, unless asked by the court, he was unable to provide any context or input on your mother's oratory.
There would be no point in him responding... In fact my guess is if OP's Mom did attempt to go on her rant in court, it wasn't long before the judge would have cut her off simply because she was not "testifying" or offering a defense, in addition to there being no point or purpose for what she supposedly was ranting about...

That Guy, my mom did not go off on a rant. She stated what happened after the officer gave his version of events. The commissioner did allow my mom to mention she was stunned when the officer told her “I held an old lady’s hand that was dying today.” She told the commissioner she felt bad for the officer but did not know what she could say in response to him. The commissioner also allowed my mom to say she was further stunned when the officer said “I’m here to protect the public from flagrant violators of the law”, implying my mom is a flagrant violator of the law. In response to my mom’s statements, the officer stated to the judge he had been with a lady who died that day. He said other than that, he did not remember what he told my mom that day (the citation was given to my mom on November 20, 2012).

Again, I regret all the confusion I caused with failing to give updates regarding the re-sets of my mom’s court dates.

[That Guy]

That Guy, I was there as an observer in the courtroom watching her trial with the officer present on February 6, two days before my last post, so it was not a figment of my imagination. Yes, it was a commissioner who ruled on my mom’s case.

You can observe, report, regret, pretend, assume and or make it all up. Rest assured I am not the one who's confused here... Not likely it would be any of the other regular members who replied to your thread. It is clear that YOU are the one who's confused here.

Rest assured that the least of my concerns here is whether you and your Mom are happy with the results. Based on your description of how that SUV was stopped in the picture, yes, your Mom committed a glaring violation of law and yes, she should be penalized for it. So for all intents and purposes, and unless that particular commissioner is offering the same benefit to all defendants who come through his court the same reduced charge offer, then his actions are not only unlawful but unfair as well. And just like others before him, he should be be removed from the bench. While I would normally assume that there could not be a single judicial officer who is as careless, thereby subjecting him/herself to the added scrutiny and potential for losing his/her position, but never say never... While the following two examples are of judges who did or attempted to do a favor for a family member, the idea that they can use their position to offer such "benefit" to ANYONE is as much an abuse of their discretion, as it is unlawful and unfair. It turns out one of the hardest working judges in Orange County was not immune to that sort of abuse of discretion. And shortly before him, yet another judge in the same county .

And while to you it might be an attempt to infer that the judge did not see your Mom's actions or behavior as negative, or that he felt the office;s actions were inappropriate, while it might be your way to express disagreement with those who were critical of your Mom's actions, I'll quote the article I linked for a idea on what it means for the rest of us:

... the San Francisco-based Commission on Judicial Performance called Salvador Sarmiento's actions "seriously at odds with a judge's duty to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary."

The commission also wrote that "Judge Sarmiento's conduct makes it more difficult for judges throughout the state to maintain the trust and respect of the public."

Its a known fact that the defendant's guilt or innocence are not predicated upon that actions or attitude of the officer at the time of the stop. As long as the offense can be and is proven to have occurred, the defendant should be found guilty of the offense they were cited for and nothing else. Once that charge is proven and the correct and proper finding of guilt is made by the court, then comes the penalty phase where it becomes up to the discretion of the court to reduce or even suspend the fine. As such, any judicial officer who is modifying a charge no matter what the reason or motivation, is overstepping the bounds of discretion afforded to him or her and their actions should be subject to review and they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Let us assume that the commissioner did act in the manner you described... Substituting a "blocking the intersection" violation which is cited under VC 22526(a), for the original Failure to stop at a stop sign, cited under 22450:

Violation ------ Fine Amount -------- Violation points ---------- Traffic school eligible/cost -------- TOTAL COST INCLUDING TRAFFIC SCHOOL
22450---------- $238 ------------------One Point --------------------Yes / $59---------------------------------- ~ $297
22526 --------- $285------------------Zero Points--------------------No / $0 ----------------------------------- ~ $285

(Link to the 2012 Bail Schedule so you can verify the fine amounts)

So assuming you are correctly reporting what you observed, are you saying that the commissioner who adjudicated your Mom's case risked losing his job only so he can save your Mom a measly $12?

If that is the case, then he really is an even BIGGER idiot that his actions would imply and he SHOULD be relieved of his duty!

Or did he modify her charge AND reduced her fine?

Well, if he did reduce her fine, then he committed another violation of law simply because pursuant to VC 42001.1(A)(1), the minimum statutory base fine for a violation of VC 22526 is $50 which after adding the other statutory fees, penalties and assessments, it comes out to the $285 I mentioned above. So the court has zero discretion to reduce that fine.

But wait, some more of the fudge you're trying to serve here, or simply a clear misunderstanding of anything and everything called "procedure", is this:

My mom never had an arraignment, only a court trial on February 6, two days before I last posted in this thread.

And if it is true that your Mom was never arraigned then this:

Again, I observed my mom’s trial on February 6 with the officer sitting next to her and testifying.

... is not true because if your Mom never had an arraignment, then there would be no trial scheduled, there would be no officer testifying and there would be no bullshit story that you can come and tell us about.

Now, before I stop, there is in fact a procedure pursuant to VC 40519(b) by which your Mom can enter a plea in writing, request that she be arraigned and tried on the same date... However, if that is the process your Mom opted to follow here, then this:

My mom has posted bail and has a speedy trial date set for January 2nd.

... is Not true because as described in the last sentence in that subsection "Any person using this procedure shall be deemed to have waived the right to be tried within the statutory period" meaning your Mom would have waived her right to a speedy trial!

So regardless of how you slice it, you're lying about something.

Oh, I'm sure you'll come back and disclose some more "facts" (in your case they would be "Alleged Facts"), and really, it still would not matter the least bit to those who participated in this thread or commented about your Mom's inappropriate behavior at the time of the stop!

So while you can continue your act, understand that while I can only speak for myself, I know others might agree with me as well when I say that I could care less what happened in your Mom's case. I have very little vested interest in the outcome of this or any of the cases that come and go through here. The only reason I and others appreciate it if posters would take a minute to update the final outcome of their cases, is only for the benefit of those who might come across later on, seeking the same answers that were addressed in those threads...

The way you did it, it would be appreciated if you DON'T report the outcome, simply because you're providing a skewed, inaccurate, incorrect and unlikely outcome and one which will likely confuse people instead of clear things up!

[HomeAgain123]

While I absolutely disagree with the harsh tone of That Guy's post, I do agree with his pertinent point that the judge found your mom guilty of an offense she was not charged with. This is an illegal act. He had absolutely no authority to do so. It would be like going to trial for assault and being convicted of mail fraud. The fact that the judicial officer was "just a commissioner" is no excuse. His only options were to find your mom guilty of the charge she was arraigned on or find her not guilty. That's it.

Now, that being said, your mom can file an appeal. Given the black and white nature of the matter, it should be quite easy to do. In fact, she won't even need a settled statement. She can simply present the ticket and the ruling showing that she was charged with one offense and convicted of another. Your mom has 30 days from the trial to file her notice of intent to appeal. There is a fairly good tutorial on how to file an appeal at www.helpigotaticket.com .

I'd be interested if your mom decides to do this. Keep us posted.

[cdwjava]

This may fall under the category of "Be careful what you wish for." If mom prevails in an appeal, she could well get a new trial which will very likely result in a conviction for the original 22450 offense and the point against her license. Yeah, she'd likely prevail on, but in the long run it could cost her more.

[HomeAgain123]

Carl,

I just don't think it works like that. If the judge has committed a reversable error, the appellate division isn't going to order a trail de novo. They will either reverse the decision or remand back to the traffic court for them to reverse. But the Mom is NOT going to have to be tried twice for the same offense.

[free9man]

Nevermind.

[That Guy]

I'm cracking up at the recommendation to follow a "very good tutorial on helpIGotATicket.com" when in fact a previous mention to the same was already made (starting with post #1) followed by a conclusion which clearly shows that information provided through that source leaves as lot to be desired!

There will be no appeal here in this case. The outcome, as described by the OP makes no sense whatsoever. The only conclusion that can be made here is that the OP made up an outcome without looking into further details, as his way of redemption for the negative image his Mom has received!

[themadnorwegian]

There will be no appeal here in this case.

I agree. In many cases, failure to object is considered a forfeiture of an issue on appeal. This is one such instance, "defendant has forfeited his right to object to an alleged variance between the pleading and the proof by failing to raise the objection in the trial court." (People v. Maury) It's not clear that prejudice occurred from this variance. In People v. Watson, the court held that a reversal wasn't justified unless "it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." In this situation, the defendant received a more lenient sentence then she otherwise would have.