You're right, but the failure to deny it is conspicuous.
Nothing to lose except the opportunity to keep this off the OP's driving record by taking traffic school. Also, CHP officers don't fail to appear, and a failure to appear would more likely result in continuance than dismissal.
Unless you deny that you were doing 77, you were speeding regardless of whether VC 22349(b) is used or the law for exceeding the posted speed limit is used.
The way you describe it, you are not guilty of violating 22349(b), and it is not at all a sure thing that the ticket will be amended. Far from it. Having said that, you need to find out where exactly this incident occurred, to confirm your defense applies. Rest assured the officer will not make your case for you. Did you actually see the highway posted 65mph somewhere around the location? Passing lanes don't count as divided multi-lane highway, and you may be misremembering where the officer was parked.
Interesting that so many people assume that I cannot tell a 2 lane highway from a 4 lane divided one. As to identifying that particular stretch of highway, fat chance. I never figured that, over a month later, I would have to remember exactly where it took place, and I'm not about to spend a whole day driving over the Sierra and trying to find a particular spot. I had every intention of just paying the ticket until I saw the wording on the courtesy notice about a "two lane undivided highway"and realized it didn't describe my situation. I had never heard of a TBWD either, until I saw the notice, and figured it couldn't hurt to check it out. Since I have already asked for a TBWD, and have the forms, I plan to simply say my piece and accept the result. Assuming the court rules against me, am I any worse off than if I had simply paid the original fine?
Also, say I could somehow prove I was observed and stopped on a 4 lane divided highway. Would that be a possible defense, or is this whole idea flawed?
You can say with certainty that you were on a divided highway, but you can't remember where you were alledgedly violating? The officer cites a location that doesn't fit a divided highway for over a hundred miles from the location cited (possibly more). So one of you two is mistaken. Guess which one will be believed in court?
As I said before, you are simply not guilty of 22349(b), as it only applies to 2-line undivided highway, if you were on a 4-lane divided highway. If you prove the latter, or at least point at it on a map, you just need to tell your story as you told it here. However, I suspect officer will say he clocked you on a 2-way divided highway, such as is in place from Bootleg camping site to Walker, CA, according to Google Maps. This is why so many people are second-guessing you on that.
The problem with TBD alone is that you can't do that AND ask for traffic school at the same time. You have to go to court again for the court trial and ask for traffic school then. It is not 100% sure you will get it at that time, either.
Its also important to point out that TBWD is a fairly futile effort which very rarely has a positive result for the defendant. I think of it as a way for the court to get its hands on your $ at an earlier date.
If you really want to beat this, find a traffic attorney for advice. You may find the process interesting regardless of outcome. If that sounds like an expensive pain in the ass, just do the traffic school and move on.
It is possible there were two cops on 395 that day and you didn't notice the one that ticketed you. Your confident declarations followed up by no evidence are not likely to get you far, on paper nor in the courtroom.
Thanks to everyone who replied. Some of the baseless conjecture was fairly amusing -- no 4 lane divided highways for "hundreds of miles" from the point indicated by the officer? Pure nonsense. Maybe "there were two cops on 395 that day and you didn't notice the one that ticketed you" -- as I said before, I saw the officer as I passed him, and watched in my rear-view mirror as he turned on his lights and pulled out of the median strip to come after me. But I suppose everyone meant well.
From the look of the well-worn dirt path in the median where the officer was parked, it was a place well used by the CHP, and I'd bet my house that the officer has used that spot for radar stops often in the past -- it is a perfect place to catch unsuspecting travelers, just over a hill where he couldn't be seen until too late. The officer seemed like a nice guy -- polite and friendly, we had no disagreements or cross words, so I thought (naively, it seems) maybe he would tell the truth about where he was. But if he is willing to lie about the location of the stop on the ticket, I don't imagine he will tell the truth about it now.
As for the repeated advice to go to traffic school, this was my first ticket (in fact, first "official' encounter of any kind with the law) in over 15 years. I don't think my insurance rates will go up significantly, if at all, over this, so traffic school would just be an additional outlay of cash.
Anyway, thanks again to all who made the effort to help me out.