19 year old citation valid? or SoL expired?

[reallyy]

I live in Pennsylvania and just today received in the mail a 19 (yes Nineteen) year old citation for being drunk in public. I have no way of remembering if I paid and they just screwed up etc. I don't even remember the incident. But in any event, they expect me to plea and make deposit cash for collateral as if this just happened. My question is: Is there a statute of limitations on a drunk in public citation? Why did they wait 19 YEARS to notify me of this. Hell I was a young kid I dont even remember this. The letter says they are 'trying to clean out old cases' but I have a feeling the SoL passed and cant fault them for 'trying'. Any info is appreciated! thanks.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[HighwayMan]

You received an original ticket in the mail? Or a notice that you didn't answer it 19 years ago and it's outstanding?

If you were served the citation at the time then SoL does not apply. If they are serving you now for the first time that's different. But it's hard to believe that you are being served with the citation for the first time for a 19 year old offense.

 

[calatty]

The statute of limitations limits the amount of time they can take to charge you with an offense, but not how long they can take to pursue the charge. However, you do have speedy trial rights. You should go see a lawyer to move to have the charge dismissed on speedy trial grounds.

 

[reallyy]

thanks

Thanks for the replies. It was not an original citation but a photocopy of one from 1991... I suppose I was given the original back then but honestly don't remember it. I like the idea of the speedy trial motion to dismiss but a lawyer would probably cost as much as the fine ($350). I suppose if I do anything but show up in court they will issue a bench warrant for the 19 year old offense. Oh My. It is insane that these things don't expire. They never contacted me between then and now, and of course now is bad economic timing.

 

[BOR]

Speedy trial does not apply.

You say it was a photocopy, this means you were charged 19 years ago. You did not show up for trial, right??

That is not a speedy trial violation.

Is there a warrant already out?

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

I do not agree with the above that "Speedy Trial" is a nonfactor - it most definitely can be, it can definitely be part of a motion to dismiss here - and depending on several things, including PA case law and state law, would probably be a successful defense. That old constitution of ours dont mean a lot nowadays, but it still exists. Even when time is tolled, you still have rights and the state still has obligations.

Nonetheless, this case is not "void" or "expired" and the courts are not "SOL".

You will need to handle this matter in a proper legal manner... at worst take it to trial by yourself, where there is little to no chance of a successful prosecution ... if the cop is even still around, which is doubtful.

You will need the guidance of legal counsel in PA to know how to press various avenues of defense. Or you need to go to court yourself and make some choices considering your time, etc.

The state/courts press this because most just walk in there, plead guilty, grumble a little, and pay a fine - despite the fact successful prosecution is unrealistic.

 

[FlyingRon]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way Steve.
He would need to proactively assert his speedy trial rights. The clock doesn't start until you move for speedy trial, and certainly doesn't run while you are a fugitive for failure to appear.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

If you are familiar with PA law and know it for a fact based on a court rulings there (I would love to see one), then I stand corrected. If you believe the state has no duty to pursue and the deft no right to a speedy trial simply because the state is neglecting to prosecute for nearly 2 decades, then they suddenly decide maybe they can find the defendant and maybe they do want to prosecute - I disagree 100% and furthermore, that has surely been ruled on in PA.

So perhaps you are correct, PA can sit around for perhaps dozens of years then whip out an alleged FTA and send a bill to someone and the defendant has no rights to assert - I do not believe that, and my limited research of a few pages in PA law/lawyer fta "ads" does not support that either.

It many states (maybe or maybe not PA), it most certainly does "work like that"... but the right will need to be asserted as part of a formal motion by someone who knows PA law or can assist this defendant in asserting his rights.

 

[BOR]

Steven, here is PA's law:

Title 42:

§ 5552. Other offenses.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subchapter, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced
within two years after it is committed.

(Other timelines ommitted/major offenses, etc.)


(c.1) (e) Commencement of prosecution.--Except as otherwise
provided by general rule adopted pursuant to section 5503
(relating to commencement of matters), a prosecution is
commenced either when an indictment is found or an information
under section 8931(b) (relating to indictment and information)
is issued, or when a warrant, summons or citation is issued, if
such warrant, summons or citation is executed without
unreasonable delay.


PA satisfied thier Commencement of prosecution timetable. If the defendant did not show up to answer the citation/pay the fine, it does NOT toll the right to a speedy trial.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Steven, here is PA's law:

Title 42:

§ 5552. Other offenses.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subchapter, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced
within two years after it is committed.

(Other timelines ommitted/major offenses, etc.)


(c.1) (e) Commencement of prosecution.--Except as otherwise
provided by general rule adopted pursuant to section 5503
(relating to commencement of matters), a prosecution is
commenced either when an indictment is found or an information
under section 8931(b) (relating to indictment and information)
is issued, or when a warrant, summons or citation is issued, if
such warrant, summons or citation is executed without
unreasonable delay.


PA satisfied thier Commencement of prosecution timetable. If the defendant did not show up to answer the citation/pay the fine, it does NOT toll the right to a speedy trial.

At no point during this thread did I doubt the validity of the complaint, and in fact expressed the exact opposite on more than one occasion.

It almost seems as if you think that your opinion of the 6th is held by the SCOTUS carte blanch and is further held state to state high court to high court; this is demonstrably false.

You need case law for the issue I'm discussing, not code. I dont know PA case law and you obviously dont either. Someone does though, and that is this OP needs to talk to.

6th Amendment by ruling is managed case by case and in practice even state to state by interpretation of that states own code, the 6th, and other existing case law - and yes delay can be prejudicial per SCOTUS and at least some states have found it to be presumptively prejudicial after certain periods of time - I'm at a loss at why you are professing an expertise here when you simply dont know for PA and you seem to lack an understanding of the 6th all together.

<i>
When a delay in bringing a defendant to trial after the filing of formal charges has become presumptively prejudicial, and the defendant seeks dismissal of the charges on grounds that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated, the court must balance the relevant factors -- the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant -- in assessing whether the delay has deprived the defendant of that right. (Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. 514, 530 [33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117].)</i>

That, along with whatever else PA has in their case law, is what can be presented by formal motion. States have a duty to prosecute. Whether you agree or not is not relevent to the motions that can be made by competent legal counsel.

Of course he probably wont, but they come here and its fair to give options and ACCURATE info.

You are ill advising the OP.

 

[FlyingRon]

Steve, the reason for the delay is that the defendant didn't show up at trial.
This isn't the state's fault. You don't get to dodge the charges just because you avoid going to court.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Steve, the reason for the delay is that the defendant didn't show up at trial.
This isn't the state's fault. You don't get to dodge the charges just because you avoid going to court.

a) Well you are presuming its his fault without knowing the facts of what happened for the FTA ... and the motion could easily show how this is the states fault and not only because they have a duty to prosecute. In fact, after 19 years, they willy nilly decided they COULD locate the defendant and contacted him, proving their neglect in that alone. They should have done that long ago if they wanted to prosecute. Just because states may be to busy or whatever, doesnt negate their duties. They should have went out and arrested him and not waited 19 years.

b)
2) Once time is deemed prejudicial to the defendant, and a motion could easily be written to make this not only the states fault, but VERY prejudicial after 19 years. it will not matter whose fault it is.


You are wrong about not being able to dodge charges by FTA. Many many many do and have. No one would ever advise it, but it happens all the time.

 

[BOR]

It almost seems as if you think that your opinion of the 6th is held by the SCOTUS carte blanch and is further held state to state high court to high court; this is demonstrably false.

Never even remotely implied such.

You need case law for the issue I'm discussing, not code. I dont know PA case law and you obviously dont either. Someone does though, and that is this OP needs to talk to.

From the citation, how do you determine case law will support the fact a speedy trial right was denied?? I don't get it?

6th Amendment by ruling is managed case by case and in practice even state to state by interpretation of that states own code, the 6th, and other existing case law - and yes delay can be prejudicial per SCOTUS and at least some states have found it to be presumptively prejudicial after certain periods of time - I'm at a loss at why you are professing an expertise here when you simply dont know for PA and you seem to lack an understanding of the 6th all together.

Expertise?? Not at all, no more than you have professed such. In case you have been reading me over time, unlike many other posters here, I just don't pull law out of a legal hat to look smart. I have basis for my opinions.

When a delay in bringing a defendant to trial after the filing of formal charges has become presumptively prejudicial, and the defendant seeks dismissal of the charges on grounds that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated, the court must balance the relevant factors -- the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant -- in assessing whether the delay has deprived the defendant of that right. (Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. 514, 530 [33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117].

Wingo has absolutley NO bearing here. It is a Procedural Due Process/fair trial ruling after a defendant has answered the charges and has appeared throughout to stand trial, it has absolutely nothing to do with a speedy trial when the defendant does not wish to assert it and refuses to answer the charge.

Of course he probably wont, but they come here and its fair to give options and ACCURATE info.

You are ill advising the OP.

You are the one ill advising, since you put it that way.

It is legally without merit a defendant can simply refuse to answer a charge and be successful in a future speedy trial to dimiss motion.


Just as a warrant has no expiration date, unless recalled, why is a Summons different??

Someone can hide from a warrant for 19 years, can he then claim a speedy trial violation??

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

It is legally without merit a defendant can simply refuse to answer a charge and be successful in a future speedy trial to dimiss motion.

I'll ignore the fact you completely disavowed wingo, which is in P&A's of just about any 6th amendment motion filed

and

We know what you said is NOT true on its face in every state ... because its most certainly untrue in AT LEAST CA.. and likely many more states.. especially considering the US precedents of wingo and moore v arizona laying good foundations for challenge (although, as I stated, this is essentially left to the states as the SCOTUS has left it open/vague at this point)

So are you saying that ONLY in your state its without merit or just in PA or do you know for sure which states have ruled it does apply and which states have ruled it doesnt?

Youre making a blanket statement as if you know coast to coast when there are states where you are 100% wrong.. so how did you learn PA law without knowing any PA case law?

 

[BOR]

Please, can you find just ONE case, in any jurisdiction, I'll even settle for deseutude law, where a defendant was successful in a speedy trial motion where they failed to appear and used it as a defense later??

That trick would catch on so fast, the jails would be empty except for those who could not make bail in the first place and were continually held in custody!!

Again, Wingo, has NO bearing on the posters facts.