Hi there, folks. I'm in search of some tips regarding an appeal for a traffic infraction in Santa Cruz Superior Court of California.
Quick summary:
I filed a Trial by Written Declaration on the day noted on the Notice to Appear. The clerk denied it, saying that the Santa Cruz court has a policy of requiring it to be filed 6 days before the due date. I insisted they take it anyway, which they did, but the judge deemed it untimely. I went to court, lost, and am now looking for tips on appeal, specifically on what to claim on the TR-160.
More detail:
I got a seat-belt ticket. No biggie, but since I was in a parking lot going from store to store, I thought I'd fight it. Really, the specifics of the ticket aren't particularly relevant, what's important is the Santa Cruz court's complete disregard for every TBD law, rule, and guideline I can find. This is not the first time I've been screwed by their bogus TBD policy, but now that I have a case where there's no repercussions from losing (i.e. no points) I feel it's my duty to establish some case law to prevent them from abusing the system.
Justification for Allowing a TBD:
40902(a)(1) "The court, pursuant to this section, shall, by rule, provide that the defendant may elect to have a trial by written declaration..."
2008 California Rules of Court - Rule 4.210 - I'll avoid copying the whole giant thing here, but the gist is that the "'due date' means the last date on which the defendant's appearance is timely" and that as long as the bail and written request for a TBD is "filed with the clerk by the appearance date ... or the extended due date" it is timely.
Benchguide 82 - summarizes these rules as I mention in section 82.13.
Superior Court, Santa Cruz, Rule of the Court - only interesting in that they don't mention any deviation from state law or policy.
People v. Cooper - Cooper fails in his appeal concerning a denied TBD, but the opinion was that it was because it was 2 1/2 months after the due date and that it was not in writing. I've met both of these requirements.
There's more, but I think you get the gist. They're screwing with the law.
This then is the question: What exactly should I claim as "grounds for appeal" on the TR-160?
In People v. Coooper, the claim is: "1. The trial court committed reversible error by violating appellant’s statutory right to a trial by declaration." but then again, Cooper was in Pro Per and did, well, lose! Is the court committing reversible error grounds for appeal? Is there some other better way of putting this? I have to file the TR160 tomorrow, so any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks so much!

