Citation in Traffic Accident in CA

[GiveAdvice]

This occurred in CA.

I got into a car accident about 3 months ago. The police were called. My vehicle was towed for driving without a license, even though I had a permit. I was not issued a citation on that day. But about a month later I got a courtesy notice from the court that I was cited under VC 12500(A) as an unlicensed driver plus a minor traffic violation. The courtesy notice did not state the class of each offense.

Problem is, at no time did I receive, nor was I issued on the day of the accident, a notice to appear. So I did not appear in court.

I just got a new notice from the court that looks just like the courtesy notice, except this time it has the Clerk's Certificate of Mailing and a warning stating "If you fail to comply with the instructions on this notice, your bail may be increased, a $300 civil assessment may be imposed, a hold may be placed on your driver's license, and/or a warrant may be issued for your arrest."

This new notice does not appear in compliance with CA VC 40604(b). It does not have the license number of the vehicle involved (neither did the courtesy notice).

So, here are my questions:

1. Shouldn't I have been cited for violation of VC 12509(d) instead?
2. Can a notice to appear not issued at the scene of the accident be mailed by first-class mail? Or is it mandatory that they be mailed certified?
3. Is the failure to send a notice to appear and the non-compliance with VC 40604(b) grounds to ignore the new notice from the court?
4. If it is not grounds to ignore it, is it a reasonable argument to make with respect to the right to a speedy trial, since their failure to send such notice resulted in an exceedingly long period before I could defend myself.

I would really appreciate it if my questions are answered directly; or if you have suggestions directly relevant to the matter. Thanks in advance!

Additional information: I did have a liability insurance on the date of the accident.

 

[CourtClerk]

You are an unlicensed driver. Citing you with 12500(a), which can be charged as a misdemeanor is perfectly appropriate. I'm also surprised that you weren't charged with 16028(c) as well, which would carry a big fine as well. Guess the officer missed that one.

 

[GiveAdvice]

No, the Officer Did Not Miss That

You made an assumption, Court Clerk. I should have added that I actually had a liability insurance. I'll proceed to modify my post to reflect that.

 

[CourtClerk]

You made an assumption, Court Clerk. I should have added that I actually had a liability insurance. I'll proceed to modify my post to reflect that.

How do you have insurance, when you don't even have a LICENSE? What insurance company insures unlicensed drivers?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

1. Shouldn't I have been cited for violation of VC 12509(d) instead?

Even if you were cited for the wrong CVC, you are still required to appear in court to defend against the original charge. You can't just ignore it.

2. Can a notice to appear not issued at the scene of the accident be mailed by first-class mail? Or is it mandatory that they be mailed certified?

It is not a requirement that it be mailed certified... 1st class mail is sufficient. But wait... I thought you said you never received a notice to appear, only the first and second courtesy notices. So why would you be arguing that it should have been mailed certified. You would be arguing that it was never mailed, right?

3. Is the failure to send a notice to appear and the non-compliance with VC 40604(b) grounds to ignore the new notice from the court?

What do you mean non-compliance with 40604? CVC40604 says that the notice to appear should be served upon the person by personal delivery or by mail. By virtue of your asking if it can be mailed first class as opposed to certified, one can reasonably assume that you received one via first class mail.

Furthermore, the way I read 40604, it says that unless they comply with the requirements in that section, then no warrant will be issued. It say nothing about your having the option to just ignore the notices from the court, nor does it say that the underlying charge will be dismissed.

4. If it is not grounds to ignore it, is it a reasonable argument to make with respect to the right to a speedy trial, since their failure to send such notice resulted in an exceedingly long period before I could defend myself.

Your right to speedy trial applies to the time between your arraignment (when you enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty") and the date of your court trial (if you plead "not guilty". It has nothing to do with the time of the incident versus the time/method you receive the notice to appear. So no, it is not a reasonable argument!!!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

You made an assumption, Court Clerk. I should have added that I actually had a liability insurance. I'll proceed to modify my post to reflect that.

CC made an assumption (icing on top of the cake) based on the fact that your post lacked the information needed to avoid such an assumption...

 

[GiveAdvice]

Let me try clarifying a few things.

It is not a requirement that it be mailed certified... 1st class mail is sufficient. But wait... I thought you said you never received a notice to appear, only the first and second courtesy notices. So why would you be arguing that it should have been mailed certified. You would be arguing that it was never mailed, right?

I am consistent with my story. I never received a notice to appear via first-class mail; nor did I receive any via certified mail. The reason I was asking was to see if it were standard to send notice to appear by first-class mail because it would then seem possible that the notice to appear got lost in the mail, since a first-class mail is not secured.

What do you mean non-compliance with 40604? CVC40604 says that the notice to appear should be served upon the person by personal delivery or by mail. By virtue of your asking if it can be mailed first class as opposed to certified, one can reasonably assume that you received one via first class mail.

The only mails I've received and they were sent first-class are the two I mentioned: courtesy notice and the new notice (not even sure what type it is) from the court.

What I meant by non-compliance was relative to the threat of a warrant being issued, since part of the warning stated that a warrant may be issued for my arrest. I'm not sure what this new mail falls under, which is why I gave a description of it--including the mention of "Clerk's Certificate of Mailing". The question about VC 40604(b) was in case this new notice was the court's attempt to comply with VC 40604.

I hope this response is clearer. Thanks for your feedback.

Edit: Maybe I should instead ask: What kind of notice is this new notice from the court? Is it still a courtesy notice? Or is it a notice pursuant to VC 40604? Or is it something else? It doesn't say anywhere on the document.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I am consistent with my story.

The way I read your first post, it sounded inconsistent. It was a conclusion that I came to and I guess I was wrong.

Edit: Maybe I should instead ask: What kind of notice is this new notice from the court? Is it still a courtesy notice?

Yes, it is still a courtesy notice from the court telling you that you missed you scheduled court appearance so you either comply or suffer the consequences.

Or is it a notice pursuant to VC 40604?

No, its pursuant to 40508 and 40509.

Now, I know you're gonna come back and say "but I never signed a promise to appear"... Point is and unless you can prove that the notice to appear was never mailed to you -(and just saying "I never received it, maybe it got lost in the mail" is not going to be sufficient)- and since the law only required that it be personally served OR mailed via first class mail, then you're obligated to show up in court to defend against the charges that are listed on the notice to appear as well as on the first and second courtesy notices.

If this answer does not fit within the realm of what you wanted to hear, then so be it, ignore it, ignore both courtesy notices and you'll be back on here pretty soon asking "I can't get my license because the court placed a hold on it, the fine is now $500 higher... What do I do?"

The answer at that time will be as follows;
Appear in court and answer to the charges on the notice to appear.
Pay the civil assessment and additional penalties added onto it (totalling approximately $500) because just plain "not showing up" is not a valid excuse for you to fail to appear.
Request that the court remove the hold on your license.
Go to the DMV and pay them approximately $120 to have your driving privilege reinstated.
... And be done with it all!

Your choice!

 

[GiveAdvice]

I_Got_Banned, thank you so much for the response and explanation. I am very grateful and will consider all of the factors and your suggestions.

Regards.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I_Got_Banned, thank you so much for the response and explanation. I am very grateful and will consider all of the factors and your suggestions.

Regards.

You're welcome so much... And please keep us posted on how this all works out for you.