Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default California Court Rule 4.210(B) Clause 2

    My question involves traffic court in the State of: California


    I mailed a written not guilty plea and request for TBWD along with bail and paid for a confirmation delivery/return receipt through the post office for a traffic citation that had an original appearance date of the 17th of December, 2009. I was cited November 2nd, 2009.

    My return receipt from the post office shows a 'received' stamp by the Court of the 4th of December.

    When I checked the Los Angeles County online traffic site for the status of my case (as I can never get through to a human being on their phone system after waiting over a half an hour or it just gives a busy signal as it did for me for two days straight at one point) on the 12th of January, the case status was listed as a 'Failure to Appear Hold' and that the matter was going to be referred to Collections if I did not handle it in a timely manner ( I find this hilariously hypocritical).

    I spent the next four hours of that day dealing with the matter at the Court Clerks Office to find out that they had not even processed my paperwork yet. The clerk told me that the one person who dealt with TBWD filing was "So backed up" , and that if I wanted to pursue the TBWD, that I should "make sure I get another confirmation of delivery/return reciept form the post office be cause this will probably happen again, unless I want to come in person and file my declaration at the window." I then had her process the still non-cashed money order in her hand that accompanied my written plea and received my TR205 form which now gives me a due date of February 11th,2010 to submit my Declaration.


    I am drafting a motion for dismissal of my citation based on the section of the California Court rule I listed in the title of this thread ( 4.210 (b) clause 2 ).

    from said section :

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/in...nkid=rule4_210

    "Extending due date

    If the clerk receives the defendant's written request for a trial by written declaration by the appearance date indicated on the Notice to Appear, the clerk must, within 15 calendar days after receiving the defendant's written request, extend the appearance date 25 calendar days and must give or mail notice to the defendant of the extended due date on the Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) with a copy of the Instructions to Defendant (form TR-200) and any other required forms. "

    Note: I was never 'given' or 'mailed' notice of the extended due date, let alone mailed my required TR205 Declaration form.

    I am including copies of all the documents like the return receipt and the printout from the LATrafficOnline site showing the courts negligence in essentially judging me guilty before proven innocent by declaring my case an FTA before they even filed my Plea - which obviously made it into the Courts hands within the timely diligence required by law.

    Included in my statement to the Court is that the Court was negligent in sending me a TR205 form with due diligence, which not only prevented me with proceeding with the Written Declaration process , but compromised my legal status to lawfully operate a motor vehicle in California and could have resulted in a bench warrant for my arrest . If my plea had been filed - which it had not been by the time I was forced to make an in person appearance at the Court thus nullifying the point of Trial By Written Declaration- then I would not be writing this Motion for dismissal as I am aware I would have waived my right to a speedy trial.


    My question to the members of this Forum is:

    Should I mail that motion separate, and or before I submit the TR205 declaration form for my citation? Or should I just include it atop the Declaration form and mail it all together and why?


    Thanks to all members of this Forum for all of your consideration and time regarding my issue!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: California Court Rule 4.210 (B) Clause 2

    You can submit your motion separately or you can submit it along with your completed declaration... It won't matter as it won't be read until the commissioner reads your TBD. Either way, I would not mail it if I were you... It is obvious that they can screw things up when you communicate via mail... I would walk in and hand it to the clerk, as well as get a "filed" stamped copy to keep for my records.

    As for your motion to dismiss, I can see how you would have an argument as far as the FTA is concerned, however, to assume that you will have the entire case dismissed due to the delay... I highly doubt it...


    Quote Quoting California Rules of Court
    Rule 4.210. Traffic court—trial by written declaration
    (c) Due dates and time limits

    Due dates and time limits must be as stated in this rule, unless changed or extended by the court. The court may extend any date, but the court need not state the reasons for granting or denying an extension on the record or in the minutes.
    By the way, if the information listing the status of your case (on the LASUPERIORCOURT.org website) shows a 40905.5 and or "HOLD" under "Status", then your license has been suspended and you would have to request that the court clerk send notice to the DMV that the hold was removed, and you would also have to go to the DMV to have your license reinstated (it will cost you $55 to have that done).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: California Court Rule 4.210 (B) Clause 2

    Ok, I wont be mailing it then. I'll go down to the Clerk window again and further nullify the whole point of the TBD process by getting the motion "filed" on the spot with a copy.

    Thanks for the heads-up on that.

    After dealing with the clerk as I described, I checked the site again last night and there was/is a new status that says "Extension", but I'm going to assume DMV doesnt know that yet (because our failing government co-operates so well between agencies when it's not their money and right to liberty on the line) and make sure to request the clerk notify them of my legitimate status.

    I suppose I'm just confused as to why I'm liable to 'shoulder that burden' when the irresponsibility and negligence of the COURT, not mine, lays the burden of further actions and penalties on my proverbial shoulders. Not complaining to you, just tossing out the thought as you seem to clearly possess a rationale about legal proceedings as your senior status on this Forum notes.

    I have seen you paste that Rule quote into at least one other thread in this forum, but I'm not following the relevancy of it to my case, considering my issue isn't regarding the Court extending anything, but rather their negligence to even begin the process of my right to trial by notifying me of any status change - after I fulfilled my requirements according to the same said law. Finally, I am then made to be at fault and penalized for their clerical inefficacies.

    In any event I'm sorry if I said anything or left anything out that you were looking for that lead you think that I wasn't aware of that statute and its relevance to the general matter of TBD.


    " As for your motion to dismiss, I can see how you would have an argument as far as the FTA is concerned, however, to assume that you will have the entire case dismissed due to the delay... I highly doubt it... "

    Finally, can you share your insight as to what you believe would be a feasible motion to include with my TR205 regarding my case based on your quote above ? It wasn't just a delay as I pointed out, the Court wrongfully penalized me, compromised my record, and has in all probability not rectified the matter with the DMV as of this writing if what you say is true.

    What do you suggest?

    Thanks Again

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: California Court Rule 4.210 (B) Clause 2

    Quote Quoting jacklikesit
    View Post
    Ok, I wont be mailing it then. I'll go down to the Clerk window again and further nullify the whole point of the TBD process by getting the motion "filed" on the spot with a copy.
    You're not nullifying anything by filing any of the forms at the clerk's window. Realistically, there is nothing about the TBD process that suggests that it has to be mailed in. the term “written” in “Trial By Written Declaration” refers to the fact that your declaration (i.e. your argument) is presented to and will be reviewed by the court in a written format rather than by you appearing before the judge in a courtroom. Yes, it is possible that the defendant can in fact mail his/her request, the bail amount and subsequently the declaration, personally, and assuming that the court is within a reasonable distance from where I am, then I wouldn't submit/file anything by mail.

    Quote Quoting jacklikesit
    View Post
    After dealing with the clerk as I described, I checked the site again last night and there was/is a new status that says "Extension", but I'm going to assume DMV doesnt know that yet
    I couldn't tell you for sure whether the DMV has been notified after your case was rescheduled or not. I have seen cases where it was done automatically by the court clerk, others where the defendant had to request it and yet others where the court requested a $10 abstract fee (the latter would ensure that the notice is sent to the DMV at the end of the business day rather than [I]“within the next 2 to 3 days”[I]).

    Also, and even if the DMV was notified that the “hold” was removed, the license is still under suspension until:
    • The reinstatement fee of $55 has been paid and...
    • The licensee passes the written test.


    And I wouldn't get caught driving before you get confirmation from the DMV that your license is either not suspended or that it has been reinstated. Yes, it was not your fault that it was suspended, but until the license is reinstated, a citing officer might not care to hear your story. Chances are, he/she will issue the citation and tell you to “tell it to the judge”...

    Quote Quoting jacklikesit
    View Post
    I suppose I'm just confused as to why I'm liable to 'shoulder that burden' when the irresponsibility and negligence of the COURT, not mine, lays the burden of further actions and penalties on my proverbial shoulders.
    And I agree that based on what you have posted here, the blame should not be placed on your shoulders, nor should you have to be put through the inconvenience and cost of having to have your license reinstated. Still, I highly doubt that the judge will offer you any relief (re the initial citation) as a result. The most I have seen them do in these cases is ask for the names of the clerk(s), if any, with whom you've spoken... That's it... You're free to bring it up, discuss it or make an issue of it and see what happens...

    Quote Quoting jacklikesit
    View Post
    " As for your motion to dismiss, I can see how you would have an argument as far as the FTA is concerned, however, to assume that you will have the entire case dismissed due to the delay... I highly doubt it... "

    Finally, can you share your insight as to what you believe would be a feasible motion to include with my TR205 regarding my case based on your quote above ? It wasn't just a delay as I pointed out, the Court wrongfully penalized me, compromised my record, and has in all probability not rectified the matter with the DMV as of this writing if what you say is true.

    What do you suggest?
    You don't need to file any motions... Assuming that the FTA matter has not been dismissed, then you have 2 matters that are pending against you. One is the underlying infraction for which you were cited I have no idea what that is), and the other is the FTA charge. Argue your case regarding the infraction but also include a synopsis of what has transpired and make a request that the court dismiss the FTA matter due to the fact that the delay in processing your paperwork was not caused by you or your actions.

    The FTA, has no bearing or effect on your guilt or innocence of the underlying offense with which you were cited. So to assume that the entire matter including the original citation should be dismissed due to the delay/error by the court then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. That is just my opinion... if you disagree, file your motion to dismiss and see what happens. Let us know how it works out.

    Good luck.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Security Deposits: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule
    By mike1127 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 05:11 PM
  2. Motions: How to Handle Appellate Court's Refusal to Rule on a Motion
    By guerneca in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-24-2011, 07:27 PM
  3. Eviction Process: In an Unlawful Detainer Case, Does a Court Need to Rule on All Defenses
    By mincer in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 12:08 PM
  4. Discovery: Understanding the Court Rule Setting Trial Date
    By landen in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 07:13 PM
  5. Defenses: Michigan Court Rule 2.116 and the Statute Of Limitations
    By nonparty23 in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 11:28 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources