OK, and so since you recognized that you were one lane away from the left edge of the roadway, places you in the second of two turning lanes. Not only does the sign indicate where you should have ended up, but even with your claim that the roadway was not marked it is still easy to assume that any reasonably attentive driver would recognize the temporary markers -even with as short as they are- to mean lane dividers. Fact is, you recognized them as well... Unless you are going to argue that you simply ended up one lane away by some luck!
Back to your first post:
^^This makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that there is no median on the other side of the intersection does not imply you can go straight from a lane that a sign in front of you represents as a left turn lane. In fact, when those lanes do get marked there still is not going to be a median on the other side of the intersection. But that does not make a left turn lane into an optional movement lane. It still leaves it as a mandatory left turn lane.
Neither cars behind you honking nor the Sheriff not doing anything to inform you of anything are required as a way to inform you of responsibility to recognize where you are and what movements you should be making. That is and will always be YOUR duty!
Sure you were... You were most certainly "properly informed"... You knew you were in a double left turn intersection. You identified it as such... Maybe after the fact but as I said, a reasonably attentive driver would have recognized it as such. In fact, you mentioned cars behind you when the left red arrow turned green. Did any of them follow you by going straight when you did so? I suspect the answer is "no, none of them followed" and as such, those are perfectly good examples of reasonably attentive drivers.
Still, to further provide you with sufficient basis that you were in fact properly notified, what code sections were you cited for?
I realize that 22107 was likely cited as the code for illegal lane change, simply because you encroaching on the straightaway lane to your right after entering the intersection from the left turn lane, all while another car was in that lane makes your movement unsafe and therefore in violation of 22107.
CVC 22107
No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
The fact that you did not signal for the last 100 feet of your movement could have been another violation under 22108.
CVC 22108
Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.
But that's a gimmie... The other violation which you described as:
Which could be cited under 21461 or under 22101(d)... Which one were you cited for?
21461
(a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
The regulatory sign posted up on the traffic signal mast indicating a mandatory left turn from the lane you were in is sufficient notice of such requirement.
If not 21461, and instead 22101(d) and even with the addition of a dedicated left turn lane or two left turn lanes for that matter, it still only requires one traffic control device to notify the driver of such mandatory movement!
You'll note that the description you provided of your second violation indicated (underlined) "Disobeying the Traffic Sign". So whether you noiticed it or not, the sign was there, and that meets the requirement under the law as being "sufficient notice"...
The MUTCD is not the law nor is it a substitute for it. The MUTCD is simply a reference for traffic engineers describing the preferred methods for designing roadways, posting signs and marking roadways by using traffic control devices.
From the MUTCD:
The Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support material described in this edition of the MUTCD provide the transportation professional with the information needed to make appropriate decisions regarding the use of traffic control devices on streets, highways, and bikeways.
Throughout this Manual the headings Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support are used to classify the nature of the text that follows. Figures and tables, including the notes contained therein, supplement the text and might constitute a Standard, Guidance, Option, or Support. The user needs to refer to the appropriate text to classify the nature of the figure, table, or note contained therein.
The figures shown in the California MUTCD are typical or example applications of the traffic control devices to illustrate their use and manner. Criteria for position, location, and use of traffic control devices in the figures are furnished solely for the purpose of guidance, understanding and information, and are not a legal standard. Engineering judgment must be used to apply these guidelines to the typical or example applications, or adjust them to fit individual field site conditions. The California MUTCD is not intended to be a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.
And to follow that logic, engineering judgment is not intended to be a substitute for the laws that were enacted by the state legislature. So again, the MUTCD cannot dictate what is/isn't required above and beyond what the vehicle code is requiring!
You can plead however which way you want through whatever means you want to do so through... But it does not appear that you have any sort of legitimate excuse to fight anything here.

