Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1

    Default Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

    I'm understanding the "speedy trial" statute, for mitigated hearings, based on the ticket date, puts the 120 days at May 31 for the last date of hearing.

    My question is this... With the shutdown, is there something that stops that from being the case? Assuming the new court date is after that date, can that be used to argue dismissal?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17,941

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    I'm understanding the "speedy trial" statute,
    Please give us the statute number so we can see if you are interpreting it correctly.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    Irlj 2.6 B1
    Mitigation hearings shall be scheduled no more than 120 days from the date of the infraction.

    Does the stay at home proclamation affect this rule and my rights to that speedy hearing rule?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,890

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    Quote Quoting SandlingAllDay
    View Post
    Assuming the new court date is after that date, can that be used to argue dismissal?

    Thanks
    Probably not. The courts were/are closed for all business that is not essential. Traffic violations are not essential.

    The state of emergency that was declared by the Governor likely put a stay on all non essential proceedings.

    You can check your county or municipal court closings here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    862

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    Quote Quoting SandlingAllDay
    View Post
    I'm understanding the "speedy trial" statute, for mitigated hearings, based on the ticket date, puts the 120 days at May 31 for the last date of hearing.

    My question is this... With the shutdown, is there something that stops that from being the case? Assuming the new court date is after that date, can that be used to argue dismissal?

    Thanks
    It’s an interesting question. Certainly there’s nothing to lose by immediately moving for dismissal based on the scheduling rule. However since the hearing is to mitigate rather than to contest I doubt there’s any way to appeal a decision but also no harm in bringing the matter up.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    I meant once the court opens back up. Because of the court closure, we would have been denied our rights given by the rule.

    Is there a rule/precedent that allows for this rule to be extended or ignored for our current situation?
    Does the state of emergency supercede our rights and pause our speedy trial somehow?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17,941

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    Quote Quoting SandlingAllDay
    View Post
    Irlj 2.6 B1
    Mitigation hearings shall be scheduled no more than 120 days from the date of the infraction.

    Does the stay at home proclamation affect this rule and my rights to that speedy hearing rule?
    No way to predict. I suggest you read the entire Rule 2.6 and note where the word "shall" is used. "Shall" means that the rules are mandatory, no exceptions. Though I am sure that the court, or a higher court, could carve out an exception for the current crisis.

    Note the requirements for notice and motions. At some point you'll have to file a motion for dismissal. If the court denies the motion you'll have to spend lots of money on an appeal to a higher court unless a higher court voluntarily dismisses infractions en masse due to the delay.

    And, BTW, it's not 120 days from the date of the infraction, it's 120 days from the date of the notice of infraction.

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rule...eid=cljirlj2.6

    While that might not be an issue if you were handed the citation on the spot, I caution you to read what is written, not what you think is written.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Paso Robles, California
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    This is an interesting question and is certainly not unique to Washington. The shutdown of businesses in this country is widespread and pretty much all-inclusive, even to include court houses and their operations. In San Luis Obispo County, CA, the court issued a press release regarding the closure of the various courtrooms in the county; they're pretty much closing them down. I understand that traffic tickets are treated different in every state but my only concern in this article is the affect this shutdown will have on persons in San Luis Obispo County who were cited to appear for arraignment on a day when the court was closed. What will happen with those people who, through no fault of their own, did not (could not) show up for their hearing? In my opinion, there are three options:

    1) The court could notify the defendant of a new hearing date they are to appear,
    2) The citing officer could reissue the citation (Notice to Appear) or,
    3) The court could dismiss the case.

    I believe the court has only one option.

    In California, an infraction is a criminal matter subject generally to the provisions applicable to misdemeanors, except for the right to a jury trial, the possibility of confinement as a punishment, and the right to court appointed counsel if indigent. (See PEOPLE v. SIMPSON (2014), 223 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 396). Penal Code section 19.7 specifically states "all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof." [Emphasis added]

    The original "NOTICE TO APPEAR" when issued by the officer requires the cited person to appear on or before a date specified in the Notice. This Notice, which includes the signature of both the officer and the cited person, constitutes "proof of service" and is legally binding on the cited person requiring them to appear in court. When the Notice to Appear is filed with the court by the police officer it can only be used for 1) the defendant may enter a plea and, 2) if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issue (PC 40513b). Once the cited person appears in court, this "Notice to Appear" loses all legal authority and the court technically still has no jurisdiction over that person. It isn't until that person appears and pleads that the court acquires jurisdiction. Because the citing officer is not representing the people, and cannot initiate criminal proceedings, the court can only acquire jurisdiction by the waiver of the filing of a complaint and by the defendant making a general appearance by entering a plea.

    Because of the mandate of VC 40513(b) (an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea…) the officer cannot change the date on the original citation, so the only recourse the officer would have is to issue another citation and file it with the court. The problem that arises then is that the officer doesn't have your signature with your promise to appear in court on a certain future day, and without that signature and notice, there is no proof of service and no failure to appear charge can be filed. At this point, the court lacks jurisdiction over you as the defendant (CCP 410.50(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10). A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.). Keep in mind that the citing officer is not the prosecutor, he is only a witness and cannot initiate criminal proceedings. If criminal proceedings have not been initiated, the court has no authority to order you to appear at a future date.

    Legally, the courts only option would be to dismiss, although technically, at this point, the court still lacks jurisdiction over the person and there is nothing to dismiss.

    It will be interesting to see how the court handles these cases.
    *****
    I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  10. #10

    Default Re: Speedy Trial and Stay at Home Orders

    Yes, thank you. Since most traffic infractions are handed to you on the spot, the notice of infraction date and date of infraction were, indeed, the same.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    I am appreciative, but as that covers CA courts, I'm not sure how I can make that apply to WA. The court with jurisdiction is closed at this time.

    **
    I'd hoped that somewhere this would have been touched on, and would find that information. Alas, I seem to be a trailblazer with this specific inquiry.
    I did get the initial notice with a hearing date. At the closure, I then received a notice that it would he delayed and I'd hear at some point with a new date to appear in court.
    They are continuing court cases with more priority (criminal matters),I can only assume because of the laws regarding speedy trials... And have written into the proclamation wording that extends the statute of limitations on filing of charges for things. It seems like a good assumption that if they had wanted to put some verbiage that allows laws like this to be postponed/extended etc, they would have.
    Without it, that law should still be intact...
    One would think.

    Anyway, I appreciate your insight, as always.
    I will go look for information on how to make that motion for dismissal. (previously I did that at the beginning of my contested hearing. Perhaps mitigating is different?)

    Thank you!
    I'll update when I know something.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Motions: Does Making a Motion for Speedy Trial Mean I No Longer Need 14 Days Notice of Trial
    By jovialmanticore in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 01:02 PM
  2. Traffic Court Issues: Trial Rescheduled Beyond Speedy Trial Limit After an Initial Continuance
    By Rocky Kern in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-24-2014, 06:35 PM
  3. Traffic Court Issues: Speedy Trial Violation, Ten Month Delay Before Trial Date
    By chadbaldwin in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 08:04 PM
  4. Motions: California Trial De Novo, Speedy Trial (45 Days), and Informal Discovery
    By zxd in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 12:40 PM
  5. Hearings and Trials: Maintaining Rights to Speedy Trial for Trial by Written Declaration
    By Zod in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 03:35 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources