Understanding a TBWD Reply from the Court

[dray]

I got my TBW reply from court with guilty verdict. I had 2 violations on the tickey. Basic speed and no seat belt. The reply has check mark next to seeding marked as guilty and nothing for the seat belt. Question, does this mean that I was found not guilty of the second one or is this just a screw up on the court side? Any way this could be used in my trial de novo?

One more piece of info, they merge the fines for both violations into 1 (which is for speeding). I'm not sure if that played any role in this, but the second violation is on the form and has no $$ and no check mark for guilty or not guilty checked on that line.

[dray]

While I'm on the subject. Can some one point me to a Trial De Novo form for court in Sacramento County CA. On the TBWD it says form TR-220 (found it here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/forms.cgi). On superior court web site they don't have that form. They got CV\E–ARB–116 which is for Rejection of Arbitration Award and Request for Trial de Novo. Is this same form or not? Also, I can't seem to find discovery request form. Do I need formal or informal? I want to file both at same time if possible (or at least have it ready).

Thank you for your help.

[HonkingAntelope]

No, TR-220 is the form used to file requests for trial de novo in traffic cases. Call the traffic court clerk to clarify whether your seatbelt violation was dismissed or someone was just lazy. If it was dismissed, do NOT put it on your trial de novo request.

[That Guy]

I got my TBW reply from court with guilty verdict. I had 2 violations on the tickey. Basic speed and no seat belt. The reply has check mark next to seeding marked as guilty and nothing for the seat belt. Question, does this mean that I was found not guilty of the second one or is this just a screw up on the court side? Any way this could be used in my trial de novo?

One more piece of info, they merge the fines for both violations into 1 (which is for speeding). I'm not sure if that played any role in this, but the second violation is on the form and has no $$ and no check mark for guilty or not guilty checked on that line.

I agree with HA... call he court and ask them what the system shows... better yet, go to court and ask at the window... And while you're there, ask for a copy of the officer's TBD declaration... It might cost you (for copies) but you will need that if you plan on requesting a Trial De Novo.

CV\E–ARB–116 which is for Rejection of Arbitration Award and Request for Trial de Novo

^That^ is a CIVIL court form... Do NOT use that one... Like HA said, use the TR-220 (the clerk should have mailed one to you with the "Decision and Notice of Decision" form... If they didn't, just print one online HEREand use it.

Also, I can't seem to find discovery request form.

There is no specific Discovery form... Google "California informal Discovery" and you will find plenty of guidance on how to write up your request. (You can fine tune it depending on what items you are requesting).

Do I need formal or informal? I want to file both at same time if possible

There is no such thing as a "Formal" discovery request... Traffic infraction matters are handled "informally" in that you do not have to conform to the typical court rules (form templates/pleadings... etc) when requesting your discovery. Although you still have to use the "proof of service form", and you must file a copy of the request with the court

(or at least have it ready).

Serve and file your request ASAP... You must give the DA at least 15 days to respond before you can request relief from the court. And if you need to file any subsequent motions, you would have to do so 10 or more days prior to your hearing date (25 days in total). So get on it sooner than later.

[dray]

Thank you all for the replies!!

One more question, can I do discovery at same time as I submit trial de novo form? In other words I wanted to send both at the same time. Now sure if that would be an issue or not.

[dray]

I got response from District Atourney. They are saying that they are not required to prosecute traffic cases and that is why they do not participate in any traffic matters. They also attached a poor copy of Law Enforcement Agency Infraction Discovery Request. It is printed on the back of a MEMORANDUM to all Infraction Defenders. I'll try to get a scan of it up soon. I have to submit this in person to law enforcement agency and it is asking for some very specific info. Any one ever got somethign like this? I've sent the cover letter with discovery request do DA from Help I got a Ticket, but that didn't seem to help convince DA in one way or the other.

[dray]

Here is the form I got from DA:


And here is the letter from DA that was sent with the form.



Any one ever got form like this? The top part is pretty easy, but bottom I'm not sure because there are charges for each page/copy and I have no clue how many copies I'll get and of what and how much I need to include. Any one can help?

And one more thing. I've send trial de novo form to court and they got it. How long does it take them to reply? It's been almost 2 weeks and I've yet to hear back.

Thanks!

[That Guy]

The top part is pretty easy, but bottom I'm not sure because there are charges for each page/copy and I have no clue how many copies I'll get and of what and how much I need to include. Any one can help? Also, it requires me to get this person to law enforcement egency in person (there is a memo on the other side of the form stating bring this in person to one of the addresses below).

If you're going to be taking it to the Law Enforcement Agency, they might be able to tell you how much the total will be.

Alternatively, you maybe able to write a check, leave the amount blank, and write "NOT TO EXCEED $XX.XX" and they will complete it and let you know how much the total was.

And one more thing. I've send trial de novo form to court and they got it. How long does it take them to reply? It's been almost 3 weeks and I've yet to hear back.

I would call the court to check with them.

[EWYLTJ]

You have an opportunity to serve the entire state and you may not even realize it. The letter you got from the DA is indicative of the lie that is perpatrated by DAs and the courts around the state. The DA is wrong when he says he is not required to prosecute infraction cases. DAs are merely not required to appear in court. There is NOTHING anywhere that says a DA is not charged with prosecutorial responsibilities in infraction cases. To the contrary, there is much case law and statutory law that specifically speaks about the obligations of the prosecuting attorney. The cop is NOT the prosecution nor is he the prosecuting attorney. SOMEONE has to be prosecuting the case!!!

So, if I were in your position, I would file a motion to compel discovery. That would be ignored. Then I'd go to court and ask to exclude all evidence that was not provided in discovery. Once that was denied, I'd appeal and have the appellate court declare the obligations of the prosecuting attorney. Then the state would be clear about the matter and people would no longer be denied their rights to discovery.

So, you have opportunity to dispel the myth. However, it would take some effort on your part. Are you willing to do some work?

[dray]

What do I need to do? I see your point there, but I have no experience in this kind of things. I would appreciate any guidance. I'm not even sure how to address a judge and not to piss him/her off.