delayed ticket hearing

[dunkum]

What is the name of your state? NY, Taconic State Parkway near Pleasantville

I got this speeding ticket for going 78 in a 55 mph zone in Mar 05 (Section 1180B). I put in a not guilty plea and have been waiting ever since for a court date. I check every 2 months or so with the court clerk and it is always "we will schedule it later when the judge and the police guy can set a date". This is kind of annoying, as I end up needing to think about the speeding ticket each time I leave for an extended holiday -- the court clerk says that there is no statute of limitations for speeding tickets in NY -- i.e., they can prosecute me 30 years later if they want.

What are your opinions?

 

[cepe10]

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS


statute of limitations:
"(d) A prosecution for a petty offense must be commenced within one
year after the commission thereof."

 

[The Occultist]

He already has a ticket, so he's already been charged, so SoL no longer applies, n'est-ce pas?

 

[cepe10]

He already has a ticket, so he's already been charged, so SoL no longer applies, n'est-ce pas?

You are correct. Apparently the court clerk in Pleasantville, NY is not familiar with the NY CPL though which is really scary.... or is knowledgeable and acting unlawfully with malice...

speedy trial requirment:
"(c) sixty days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein the
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of not more than
three months and none of which is a crime punishable by a sentence of
imprisonment of more than three months;
(d) thirty days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein the
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
violation and none of which is a crime."

I think I would send the court a written plea of not guilty and expressly state I was not waving my right to a speedy trial. Then motion for dismissal.

S 170.30 Motion to dismiss information, simplified information,
prosecutor`s information or misdemeanor complaint.
1. After arraignment upon an information, a simplified information, a
prosecutor`s information or a misdemeanor complaint, the local criminal
court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss such instrument or any
count thereof upon the ground that:
(a) It is defective, within the meaning of section 170.35; or
(b) The defendant has received immunity from prosecution for the
offense charged, pursuant to sections 50.20 or 190.40; or
(c) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution,
pursuant to section 40.20; or
(d) The prosecution is untimely, pursuant to section 30.10; or
(e) The defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial; or
(f) There exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to
conviction of the defendant for the offense charged; or
(g) Dismissal is required in furtherance of justice, within the
meaning of section 170.40.
2. A motion pursuant to this section, except a motion pursuant to
paragraph (e) of subdivision one, should be made within the period
provided by section 255.20. A motion made pursuant to paragraph (e) of
subdivision one should be made prior to the commencement of trial or
entry of a plea of guilty.
3. Upon the motion, a defendant who is in a position adequately to
raise more than one ground in support thereof should raise every such
ground upon which he intends to challenge the accusatory instrument. A
subsequent motion based upon such a ground not so raised may be
summarily denied, although the court, in the interest of justice and for
good cause shown, may in its discretion entertain and dispose of such a
motion on the merits notwithstanding.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

As suggested, this is not a criminal case so they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, none of the 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th Amendment rights you would have in a criminal case apply.

However, there MAY be cause for a motion to dismiss for failure to diligently prosecute the case he could file. But since I hate everything NY, I'll let YAG answer that part.

 

[You Are Guilty]

As suggested, this is not a criminal case so they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, none of the 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th Amendment rights you would have in a criminal case apply.

However, there MAY be cause for a motion to dismiss for failure to diligently prosecute the case he could file. But since I hate everything NY, I'll let YAG answer that part.

"I put in a not guilty plea" is what concerns me - that's where the waiver usually comes in.

But, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so claim a violation of a speedy trial and see what the judge says - at worst, you're right back in the same position you started in (albeit with a slightly more PO'd judge).

 

[Jim_bo]

So... how did you put in the plea of Not Guilty? Did you appear in court? If so, did you sign anything? If so, does the fine print waive your right to a speedy trial?

I'm not familiar with NY law, but in CA if you submit your plea in writing via the mail, you automatically waive your rights to a speedy trial. Also, in CA, a speedy trial is 45 days after arraignment. Just try to research the NY law and see how it relates. I do not believe that NY can just keep putting you off indefinitely.

Jimbo

 

[You Are Guilty]

NY (like every state I've heard of), waives it unless you make the specific demand, (usually at the first appearance or, at the minimum, before the time expires). I'm guessing it's way too late now to contest the timing, but as someone pointed out, OJ is walking around waving black leather gloves at people, so anything can happen.

 

[dunkum]

more details

Thanks for the responses.

All I did up to this point was send the ticket back with the "plea of not guilty" section filled out -- I did this well within the time line quoted on the ticket back in March 2005. After that there has been no response from the court. I just checked the copy of the ticket and it does not say any where that I waive my write to a speedy trial by turning in a not guilty plea. The only thing that it does say is "Mail this not guilty plea within 48 hours. The court will notify you by first class mail of your trial date".

 

[Jim_bo]

NY (like every state I've heard of), waives it unless you make the specific demand, (usually at the first appearance or, at the minimum, before the time expires). I'm guessing it's way too late now to contest the timing, but as someone pointed out, OJ is walking around waving black leather gloves at people, so anything can happen.

That doesn't sound right. The right to a speedy trial is the DEFENDANT's right. The State cannot waive the rights of the defendant!!!

There may be a NY statute that states a written plea is a waiver of speedy trial rights. In CA, that is in the vehicle code, but it says it nowhere on any of the forms that you use to make such a written plea.

Jimbo

 

[The Occultist]

That doesn't sound right. The right to a speedy trial is the DEFENDANT's right. The State cannot waive the rights of the defendant!!!

There may be a NY statute that states a written plea is a waiver of speedy trial rights. In CA, that is in the vehicle code, but it says it nowhere on any of the forms that you use to make such a written plea.

Jimbo

It doesn't matter what sounds right to you. A lot of states have statutes regarding speedy trial that state that the right is waived unless the defendant actively exercises that right. It's life.

 

[cepe10]

In People v Taylor (189 Misc 2d 313 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2001]), the court stated that although "a defendant charged with a traffic infraction has no statutory right to a speedy trial, he nevertheless has a constitutional right to a speedy trial (People v Fisher, 167 Misc 2d 850)." However, the Appellate Term was unclear whether the statutory right to a speedy trial referred to in Taylor was CPL 30.30, or the codification of a constitutional right to a speedy trial found in CPL 30.20. Nevertheless, Taylor was cited by the Appellate Term for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts in People v Gordon (2 Misc 3d 134 [2004]), holding that CPL 30.20 applies to traffic violations while CPL 30.30 does not. In any event, each Appellate Term in Gordon and Taylor utilized the Taranovich factors in determining [*3]whether the defendant's constitutional rights were violated.

In determining whether a defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975], supra, cited by People v Gordon, 2 Misc 3d 134 [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 674, lv denied on reconsideration 3 NY3d 706], supra; People v Taylor, 189 Misc 2d 313 [App Term, 2d Dept 2001], supra).

You need to argue the 5 elements in the motion you file. That is a long, long time of delay...There is nothing in the casw law or CPL about having to notify the court you want to excercise your right to a speedy trial...