Changing VC violation to MC violation HELP

[Roback]

What is the name of your state? CA

I received a 22350 VC violation the end of October. I have to 12/17 to deal with it. I have gone back and forth over it. I do not want to fight it as I do not want to forfeit my traffic school option, even though I have been told that a judge can be forced via a section of the vc to grant traaffic school, even after a case is lost. But don't want to take the chance that a judge would not uphold that. I have not gotten a ticket in 18 years but I am very pissed off. I am in Los Angeles in a upscale area where people are absolutely narcissistic and insensitive to others on the road. It is common place for people to speed up to 50 mph, whipping over the double yellow lines with their brights on into ongoing traffic, just so they don't have to stop while I pull into my driveway. i was on my way to take one of my kids to an elementary school down the block, and backed out of my driveway and accellerated more than normal as we were late and then slowed down. A cop was on the next corner and shot me with radar and said I was going 45 in a 30. I am afraid if I lose I will lose Traffic School. So I was told that if I go up to the officer before the hearing, if I ask for a hearing, and ask that the violation be changed to a municipal code infraction like failure to obey a traffic device (posted speed limit) that
it would not be sent to the DMV and thus not count against me. I do not know is having been convicted of a muni code infraction is any more permanent or damaging then a vc violation that has been dismissed by traffic school. It probably would be cheaper and I would not have to do traffic school. Has anyone here successfully used this approach? if so, what section of the muni code can I use and what do I say to the officer before the hearing that would likely get him to be cooperative? I understand that if he says no, I can ask the judge before testimony for traffic school and he would more than likely grant it. What are the pros and cons to this aproach? I understand that there is even a 0 point VC violation that it could be switched to that would have no significance as well. Any help would be appreciated. BTW, I checked the facts and the Speed Trap Law does not appear to apply in any way. Help

 

[CourtClerk]

What is the name of your state? CA

I received a 22350 VC violation the end of October. I have to 12/17 to deal with it. I have gone back and forth over it. I do not want to fight it as I do not want to forfeit my traffic school option, even though I have been told that a judge can be forced via a section of the vc to grant traaffic school, even after a case is lost.

Who told you that???? I've never heard of such a beast in all the years of me working in a court... many of those years working in traffic.

But don't want to take the chance that a judge would not uphold that. I have not gotten a ticket in 18 years but I am very pissed off. I am in Los Angeles in a upscale area where people are absolutely narcissistic and insensitive to others on the road. It is common place for people to speed up to 50 mph, whipping over the double yellow lines with their brights on into ongoing traffic, just so they don't have to stop while I pull into my driveway. i was on my way to take one of my kids to an elementary school down the block, and backed out of my driveway and accellerated more than normal as we were late and then slowed down. A cop was on the next corner and shot me with radar and said I was going 45 in a 30. I am afraid if I lose I will lose Traffic School. So I was told that if I go up to the officer before the hearing, if I ask for a hearing, and ask that the violation be changed to a municipal code infraction like failure to obey a traffic device (posted speed limit) that
it would not be sent to the DMV and thus not count against me.

Muni code violations ARE in fact, sent to the DMV, however, they do not carry a point, however, they are not used very much these days... especially not on a city street.

I do not know is having been convicted of a muni code infraction is any more permanent or damaging then a vc violation that has been dismissed by traffic school.

Traffic infractions stay on your record 3 years. Muni codes or vehicle codes... VC's can be dismissed via traffic school, oddly enough, so can Muni codes violations. The problem is that it is discouraged for you to try and dismiss a muni code violation via traffic school because it doesn't carry a point anyway and if later down the line you get convicted of a VC, your option is a 12hr TS course, which will show on your record anyway.

It probably would be cheaper and I would not have to do traffic school. Has anyone here successfully used this approach? if so, what section of the muni code can I use and what do I say to the officer before the hearing that would likely get him to be cooperative? I understand that if he says no, I can ask the judge before testimony for traffic school and he would more than likely grant it.

All of the bench officers I have ever worked with have the same policy in general. Traffic school is available for all who qualify if they want it before testimony. If they lose at trial, they get the point. It's a very simple all or nothing policy.

What are the pros and cons to this aproach? I understand that there is even a 0 point VC violation that it could be switched to that would have no significance as well.

I've never ever seen a 0 point speeding ticket...

Any help would be appreciated. BTW, I checked the facts and the Speed Trap Law does not appear to apply in any way. Help

Given everything I've basically told you above, the only additional advice I can give you is to stop listening to who ever you're listening to. Their advice isn't all that great.

 

[Hey There]

Driver's School Is Available Afrer Conviction

12-7-07
Roback,

The following case supports that a driver convicted of a traffic violation CAN'T be denied traffic school because he went to trial and was ruled against.
CAPITALIZATION Mine

People v. Wozniak (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43 , 243 Cal.Rptr. 686
[Crim. A. No. 25132. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles. December 15, 1987.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC N. WOZNIAK, Defendant and Appellant

(Opinion by Soven, J., with Cooperman, P. J., and Newman, J., concurring.)


COUNSEL
Eric N. Wozniak, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Ira Reiner, District Attorney, Arnold T. Guminski and Martha E. Bellinger, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION
SOVEN, J.

Defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of Vehicle Code section 22350. The officer testified that defendant was driving 52 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. After the officer and defendant testified, defendant asked to attend traffic school.

The statement on appeal states: "The Court then informed the defendant that it was not possible to attend traffic school after receiving a trial. The Judges had adapted [sic] the policy that traffic school is available before trial as an alternative to trial."

[1] Vehicle Code section 42005, subdivision (b), provides that "n lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense, and with the consent of the defendant, or AFTER CONVICTION of a traffic offense, the court MAY ORDER any person issued a notice to appear for a traffic violation to attend a traffic violator school ...." (Italics added.)

SECTION 42005, by its terms, ENVISIONS THE POSSIBILITY OF TRAFFIC SCHOOL EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER CONVICTION. fn. 1 Moreover, independent of the particular [197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 45] language of section 42005, this court held in People v. Enochs (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d Supp. 42, 43-44 [133 Cal.Rptr. 363], that a court's discretion to grant or deny a request for traffic violator school DID NOT encompass a blanket refusal to permit traffic school to all defendants who requested traffic school after trial: "To grant or refuse a request for traffic school on such an arbitrary basis is a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Such discretion must be 'governed by legal rules to do justice according to law.' [Citations.] A decision based on the order in which a defendant made his requests is not one grounded in 'legal rules to do justice according to law.'

"The trial judge has the power to order defendant to attend traffic school. If the trial judge believes that a defendant's circumstances indicate that a defendant would benefit from attending school, such attendance should be authorized. The question of such imposition should not be affected by the order in which plea, explanation and request (for school) are presented. To decide on defendant's entitlement to traffic school on the basis of the order of presentation rather than the facts of the case is capricious and arbitrary."

In summary, both the present language of Vehicle Code section 42005 and People v. Enochs, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d Supp. 42, decided more than 11 years ago, require trial courts to consider the merits of a defendant's request for traffic violator school whether that request is made before or after conviction. The trial court in this case abused its discretion in relying on a court policy to deny any defendant permission to attend traffic violator school after conviction.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set the matter for a hearing to consider and decide defendant's request for traffic violator school consistent with the views expressed in Enochs and in this opinion.

Cooperman, P. J., and Newman, J., concurred.

*FN 1. Section 42005, as enacted in 1968, provided that the "court may order any person convicted of a traffic violation to attend a school for traffic violators ...." (Stats. 1968, ch. 1192, § 21, p. 2265.) This portion of section 42005 remained in effect until 1984. (See Stats. 1975, ch. 844, § 3, p. 1910.) In 1984, subdivision (a) of section 42005 was amended to provide for traffic violator school "n lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense, and with the consent of the defendant ...." (Stats. 1984, ch. 1037, § 5, pp. 3596-3597.) The provision for traffic school after conviction was added in 1985. (Stats. 1985, ch. 396, § 23.)

[End of Volume 197 Cal.App.3d]
*********************************************************
AND VC 42005
Court-Ordered Driving Instruction
42005. (a) The court may order or permit a person CONVICTED OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION to attend a traffic violator school licensed pursuant to Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 11200) of Division 5.

(b) In lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense committed by a person who holds a noncommercial class C, class M1, or class M2 driver’s license, and with the consent of the defendant, the court may order the person to attend a licensed traffic violator school, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program or driving instruction.

(c) Pursuant to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the court may not order or permit a person who holds a class A, class B, or commercial class C driver’s license to complete a licensed traffic violator school, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program of driving instruction in lieu of adjudicating any traffic offense committed by the holder of a class A, class B, or commercial class C driver’s license.

(d) The court may not order or permit a person, regardless of the driver’s license class, to complete a licensed traffic violator school, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program of driving instruction in lieu of adjudicating an offense if that offense had occurred in a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210.

(e) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f), a person so ordered may choose the traffic violator school the person will attend. The court shall make available to each person subject to that order the current list of traffic violator schools published by the department pursuant to Section 11205.

(f) In those counties where, prior to January 1, 1985, one or more individual courts, or the county acting on behalf of one or more individual courts, contracted for the provision of traffic safety instructional services to traffic violators referred by the court pursuant to a pretrial diversion program, the courts may restrict referrals under this section to those schools for traffic violators or licensed driving schools that are under contract with the court or with the county to provide traffic safety instructional services for persons referred pursuant to subdivision (a).

(g) A county described in Section 28023 of the Government Code may continue to provide the program authorized by this section in accordance with the provisions of current and future contracts as may be amended and approved by the individual courts within that county and the county shall be exempt from state regulations relative to maximum classroom attendance.

(h) Notwithstanding subdivisions (f) and (g), a court in the counties described in those subdivisions shall comply with the prohibitions set forth in subdivisions (c) and (d).

(i) A person who willfully fails to comply with a court order to attend traffic violator school is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(j) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.

Amended Sec. 54, Ch. 724, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.
Amended Sec. 31, Ch. 952, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005.

Regards,
Hey There
.

 

[Hey There]

Clicking and Reading Brings Info To Help Make Decisions

12-7-07
Roback,

Basic Speed Law
VC22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.
**********************************************************
According to a book Published by NOLO on fighting a ticket in California, in order to be found guilty of the cited offence all parts of the violation must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In Chapter 4, page 7, defences are offered to refute that the Basic Speed Law was violated. The author, a lawyer also suggests that the violation be read section by section with emphasis on evaluating key phrases that suggest that no violation occured.
A Radar reading can be inaccurate as discussed in Chapter 4, pages 13 thru page 22. In addition this book has extensive information on traffic tickets from what to consider BEFORE entering a plea, how to request discovery, submit a trial by declaration, questionthe officer at trial and appeal if necessary.
In California a driver cited for a traffic violation has the right to obtain copies of the officer's notes, video (if used) and other testimony the officer will use in court.
1. The above mentioned book has a form that can be copied and used to request Discovery as well as simple instructions on how to do it.
2. By going to Google and typing in Discovery for Traffic Tickets, websites on the first page give instructions on how to submit a request for Discovery and how to request a hearing if Discovery isn't provided.
3. A webite specifically for drivers cited for a traffic violation in California called Help! I Got A Ticket! has a form that can be downloaded to request Discovery as well as concise information on what to do once a driver has been given a traffic ticket. George McCalip will also answer questions relating to directly to a citation thru his E:mail address given on his website.
4. Another website reached through Google and typing in --Plea bargaining on a speeding ticket --will bring up on the first page (Speeding Ticket -- Fighting or Plea Bargaining). This website has information critical to a driver who wishes to contest his driver violation.

Trial by Declarartion.
In California a driver has two chances to argue that he isn't guilty of the citation he was cited for. In the trial by declaration, the driver submits, along with payment of the bail, a statement as to why he is not guilty of the violation he was cited for. The officer who cited the driver submits his statement. The judge or traffic referee decides. If the driver is ruled against by the judge, then he can request a trial before ANOTHER judge.
1. The above mentioned book has information on this.
2.A Google search by typing in Trial By Declaration will bring up websites on how to submit one.
3. And of course this is explained in Help! I Got A Ticket!
*********************************************************
If a driver decides to go to trial the book published by NOLO has a chapter on preparing for trial and a chapter on what questions to ask at trial. The website Speeding Ticket -- Fighting or Plea Bargaining
has two pages on time in court, a page on a cited driver's rights, and
complete information on questioning the accuracy of the radar reading.
********************************************************

There are five options when entering a plea--not guilty, guilty, nolo contendere, forfeiting bail without a plea, and accepting traffic school instead of a plea, also explained in the NOLO book on traffic tickets which should be available through a local library.
The choice in the end is yours of course.

Best Regards,
Hey There

 

[CdwJava]

All of which means that the court may still use its discretion to allow traffic school. There is no law requiring the court to make traffic school available after trial ... it is a discretionary act of the court.

And, as Court Clerk pointed, out most CA traffic courts do not offer it after a failed court trial. But, sometimes, they will allow it ... it depends on the judge.

- Carl