Advice Sought Urgently: How to proceed with Trial De Novo

[rocksci]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I was given a ticket for VC21950(a) Did not yield to pedestrians. I fought by trial de novo and was proclaimed guilty. I pleaded not guilty and asked for a court trial. I was given a court date for 17th feb. I was sure the office would show up(he was very diligent and prompt with all the communication) so I submitted a request for a hearing on 2nd Feb.

I said:
"As a result of the guilty conviction, I would like to request a hearing so that I may request traffic school and possibly a reduction in the fine". This was 2nd Feb.

Today on 6th Feb I get a copy of a request the officer sent to request on the 2nd feb(same day as my letter requesting for a hearing) asking for a continuance since he cannot make it on the 17th of Feb and he can make it after the 20th. The 45 day continuance period ends on 24th Feb. At this point his request would most likely be rejected as the court would not be able to schedule a hearing between 20th-24th Feb(too late).

The court says they interpreted my letter saying I'm pleading guilty and have granted me traffic school. They refuse to interpret my letter as a request for hearing and not as "pleading guilty".

I want to fight this interpretation and likely have the case dismissed. Do you think there is a chance here? How should I proceed?

Will really appreciate advice from this forum! Thank you!

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I was given a ticket for VC21950(a) Did not yield to pedestrians. I fought by trial de novo and was proclaimed guilty. I pleaded not guilty and asked for a court trial. I was given a court date for 17th feb. I was sure the office would show up(he was very diligent and prompt with all the communication) so I submitted a request for a hearing on 2nd Feb.

I said:
"As a result of the guilty conviction, I would like to request a hearing so that I may request traffic school and possibly a reduction in the fine". This was 2nd Feb.

Today on 6th Feb I get a copy of a request the officer sent to request on the 2nd feb(same day as my letter requesting for a hearing) asking for a continuance since he cannot make it on the 17th of Feb and he can make it after the 20th. The 45 day continuance period ends on 24th Feb. At this point his request would most likely be rejected as the court would not be able to schedule a hearing between 20th-24th Feb(too late).

The court says they interpreted my letter saying I'm pleading guilty and have granted me traffic school. They refuse to interpret my letter as a request for hearing and not as "pleading guilty".

I want to fight this interpretation and likely have the case dismissed. Do you think there is a chance here? How should I proceed?

Will really appreciate advice from this forum! Thank you!

You didn't ask for a trial to prove your innocence. You asked for a trial so you could request traffic school. Not needed - you were given traffic school. Congrats!

 

[CdwJava]

About all you can do is file for an appeal of the decision. However, reading your letter I am of the same opinion that you asked for a chance to take traffic school.

I suppose you can still appeal the matter so you might want to look into that. You might have to pay the fine prior to that, however.

 

[wrongsometimes]

About all you can do is file for an appeal of the decision. However, reading your letter I am of the same opinion that you asked for a chance to take traffic school.

I suppose you can still appeal the matter so you might want to look into that. You might have to pay the fine prior to that, however.

Traffic court does not consider a Motion for Reconsideration? Seems like some confusion occurred.

 

[Zigner]

Traffic court does not consider a Motion for Reconsideration?

Please stay off the threads that you have no clue about. Of course, that would mean all of them, but I digress.

 

[CdwJava]

Traffic court does not consider a Motion for Reconsideration? Seems like some confusion occurred.

That sounds like a note and not a properly formatted motion. I suspect that if the OP had sent a notice making a motion for reconsideration, the OP would have used that language.

Also keep in mind that the motion has a time limit and the courts may also require that there be new facts to support such a claim. if the OP wants to consider this, the OP will need to look into it immediately.

 

[demurringdude]

Did you fill out a TR220 request for a trial de novo? If so, can you tell us exactly what you wrote on it?

Normally the court has no option but to schedule a trial de novo if you request one in time (20 days from verdict in the TBD). Assuming you filled out your TR220 correctly, you should be able to get the ruling overturned.

Did you receive anything from the court in writing after submitting the TR220? Conversations with a clerk don't really count for anything.

Generally, no court in California is allowed to enter a guilty plea for you. You can only do that yourself, in person, in open court. Failing that, the only plea that a court can enter on your behalf is "not guilty".

 

[demurringdude]

By the way, I am not sure there is a 45-day time limit for the court to schedule your trial. The 45-day limit starts counting on the day you enter your plea, which strictly speaking you have not yet done. Sending in the TR220 does not count as entering a plea. Some courts may agree to dismiss after 45 days anyway, but you would probably have to make a motion for it, and they wouldn't have to allow it. So I would not count on that technicality to get you off the hook. You might do better to take the traffic school, since that option will likely go away if you manage to get the trial de novo restarted.

 

[CdwJava]

DD, in his post he says he lost the trial de novo. I wonder if he has twisted the terms and actually lost the trial by written declaration?

 

[demurringdude]

DD, in his post he says he lost the trial de novo. I wonder if he has twisted the terms and actually lost the trial by written declaration?

CDW, yes, I made that same assumption, based on the sequence he described. The ordinal post is bit confusing in several areas.