• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

My ticket was dismissed via Trial by Dec, but they still charged me civil assessment

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

moviezrock

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My speeding ticket was dismissed via trial by written declaration, but the civil assessment, which was attached to it, was not. They took out the amount for the civil assessment from the bail amount that I paid, and then they refunded the rest, which was not that much.

Is that legal? How can they still charge a fine that was dismissed, which means it no longer exists?

I was charged the civil assessment, because I did not receive the letter they sent notifying me that I was not allowed any more extensions until after the date they gave me to take care of it. They put a date that was 4 days after the date they drafted the letter.

I would like to fight this. Please advise.

TIA
 


OK a civil assessment is imposed pursuant to PC 1210.1 and You need to provide more info as to why they did this. Read that law, it is short and you will know what you are dealing with. Likely you are appearing on an FTA.

By law you have 10 days after notice to appear (usually file a local form) and show good cause for your FTA/FTP??, the court may vacate the judgment.


You have 20 days to file for a trial de novo.. i would have to research if you can get a trial de novo on a not guilty finding but based on an assessment. I've personally never seen an assessment added to a not guilty finding and on the face of it, it doesnt give me a warm fuzzy... trails by dec are handled by CVC and Rules of Court.

You have 30 days to file an appeal. Many courts have developed their local "customs" in adding $300 that stretch the law a little.. ie. they dont give notice, add it before notice, etc so review the law and your case file as to how it was added.. and perhaps get some good legal advice on how to proceed.

These are pretty solid time frames so you need to go to the court house immediately and find out your options and get your paper work filed.
 
Last edited:

moviezrock

Junior Member
OK. Thanks for the info, Steven. The reason they added the civil assessment is that I did not show up for court, nor did I pay the fine (I did eventually pay the fine). But that was because I did not receive the letter stating I had to by a certain date until the deadline for me to go to court had already passed. The deadline they gave was 4 days after the letter to me was drafted. The letter I am referring to is a letter written by the judge replying to my letter asking for yet another extension, because I did not have the cash to take care of it at the time.

I was going to contest the civil assessment after I received notice of the verdict on the trial by dec, as the girl that I gave my trial by dec to said there was not really a deadline to submit the form to contest it, but I did not know they would take the money out of the money that I paid for the ticket, and keep it for the civil assessment. One would think that a late fee on a ticket that was dismissed would no longer apply.

The courthouse is 2 hours away (I received the ticket while I was traveling), so hopefully they can direct me to a website where I can download the necessary form(s). I will all them tomorrow.

Where can I read that law? Is there a website, or will I have to go to a courthouse or law library?

So funny to me that courts try to pull these kinds of stunts. I'm assuming when you say it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy, that this move by the court is not the most ethical or legal of moves. One would think a governing body that is enforcing the law would not try to circumvent it, but I guess times are tough for the court as well.
 

moviezrock

Junior Member
By the way, can I cash the check that they sent, or is cashing it stating that I agree that that amount is all that they owe me. Can I write, "Not paid in full" on the check and then cash it? Will that help? Thanks.
 

moviezrock

Junior Member
It just says EXONERATION, and then the case number and my name in the memo section of the check. That doesn't imply PAID IN FULL, does it? Am I OK to cash it?
 
OK, understood.. FTA..

Yeah cash it, dont worry about any words written on it but the amount. Endorse and cash it.. no writing messages on it, no one will see it or care and None of that stuff matters. What matters is the law and the judge, who has total discretion. The law gives you 10 days to appear and show cause. In our court, we have a local form and a calendar where you can appear within the time frame... so I would address the civil assessment in that way.

Most CA law, including the PC is at leginfo.ca.gov.

Careful if a clerk tells you "dont worry about time frames" .. that is not sound advice nor the law at all. I almost cant imagine a court clerk saying that but there are some very stupid and rude Court Clerk s
 
Last edited:
So funny to me that courts try to pull these kinds of stunts. I'm assuming when you say it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy, that this move by the court is not the most ethical or legal of moves. One would think a governing body that is enforcing the law would not try to circumvent it, but I guess times are tough for the court as well.

Times are tough for the courts and fees have gone up and courts are very aggressive financially. That is reality.

I cant think of any reason why adding the $300 when you did FTA on a signed promise to appear is illegal (a courtesy notice you did or didnt receive doesnt matter). But I think all of those, the fact you had a trial and were exonerate and made multiple contacts with the court and worked to get extensions and whatever else you dream up could all combine to be valid good cause to vacate the judgment.
 

moviezrock

Junior Member
Thanks. I cashed it.

I also called the court, and the lady that answered said that I was found guilty on count 1 (the civil assessment), since I did not contest it, and not guilty on count 2 (the ticket).

The thing is, when I was handing in my written declaration for the ticket, I asked about contesting the civil assessment as well, and she said not to worry about it, that there was no due date on handing in the dispute for that. She said that after a couple of months, that DMV may suspend my license if it was not paid or contested (I opted not to pay the civil assessment up front), but that as long as I took care of it before then, I would be OK. She did not state that it would be decided at the same time as the ticket, which is exactly what happened.

The lady at the court who I spoke to today said I could either write a letter (which I have not had success with in the past with that court), or I could walk in to court and talk to the judge (which I have had success with).

So, I am going to try to get out there within a week and talk to the judge. They lady on the phone said I had 30 days, but I no longer trust them. If anything, I have 20 days from the date they made the decision to file a trial de novo, but like you said, whether or not I can request a trial de novo on the civil assessment that was attached to a not guilty verdict remains to be seen. Please let me know if you find that out.

And if you have any more tips of what to say to the judge, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

I will keep you posted.
 
i'm sorry but you are receiving horrible info or are misinterpretting what you are told. A civil assessment pursuant to 1214.1 is enforced as a civil money judgement, you arent found guilty on something like that. It is imposed pursuant to law typically in accordance with local direction/rules by the presiding judge and may be vacated by the traffic judge/commissioner.
... be very wary of info or "advice" that goes against written law. There are Court Clerk s prone to giving out horrible info, so just word to the wise.

You need a fact finding mission and I think a walk in appearance before the judge is just what is needed. I'd be suprised if you could just walk in any time day or night and talk to a judge.. you might make sure that there isnt a specific calendar to appear on... before u waste ur time
 

I_Got_Banned

Senior Member
OK a civil assessment is imposed pursuant to PC 1210.1
PC 1210.1 has nothing to do with a traffic infraction or with the associated civil assessment that is tied to a failure to appear.

A civil assessment that is associated with a traffic infraction is applied pursuant to Vehicle code section 40508 and comes as a result of the defendant willfully violation his/her promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court. That becomes a separate charge that is adjudicated independently of the underlying offense (i.e. the traffic infraction in this case).

It sounds to me like the OP violated his lawfully granted promise to appear in court, the court added a separate FTA charge, and subsequently added the civil assessment to the fine amount that is due. The defendant then submitted a TBD, wherein he offered the court with a defense against the traffic infraction (speeding) and yet he didn't address the FTA/Civil assessment at all. He was later found "not guilty" on the underlying offense (speeding) yet due to the fact that he failed to offer the court any viable defense for the FTA he was found "guilty" of that charge, and was fined accordingly by deducting the fine amount from the bail he had previously submitted.

In other words, just because you were found "not guilty" of speeding, does not necessarily mean that the FTA charge will be dismissed. So you need to contact the court to further establish why and when the FTA was added; if it was added because of an error made ny the court/clerk, then you've got a pretty good argument to justify requesting a refund of the full amount that you posted. otherwise, your chances of getting such a refund are pretty limited.
 

I_Got_Banned

Senior Member
i'm sorry but you are receiving horrible info or are misinterpretting what you are told. A civil assessment pursuant to 1214.1 is enforced as a civil money judgement, you arent found guilty on something like that.
You're getting closer Steven... Yet not close enough. The FTA charge (a misdemeanor) is added to the underlying offense of speeding is pursuant to VC 40508 which in turn, allows the court to add the civil assessment of $300 pursuant to PC 1214.1... Regardless of the reason for the FTA, it still remains to be a "misdemeanor charge" that must be adjudicated in court (or via TBD). So again, if the OP failed to address the misdemeanor FTA charge in his TBD (i.e. he failed to provide the court with a plausible defense to failing to appear), and despite the fact that the speeding charge was dismissed, he was found guilty of the misdemeanor FTA charge and the associated fine amount (civil assessment of $300) was deducted from his bail amount that was on hold with the court.
 

CourtClerk

Senior Member
You're getting closer Steven... Yet not close enough. The FTA charge (a misdemeanor) is added to the underlying offense of speeding is pursuant to VC 40508 which in turn, allows the court to add the civil assessment of $300 pursuant to PC 1214.1... Regardless of the reason for the FTA, it still remains to be a "misdemeanor charge" that must be adjudicated in court (or via TBD). So again, if the OP failed to address the misdemeanor FTA charge in his TBD (i.e. he failed to provide the court with a plausible defense to failing to appear), and despite the fact that the speeding charge was dismissed, he was found guilty of the misdemeanor FTA charge and the associated fine amount (civil assessment of $300) was deducted from his bail amount that was on hold with the court.
Just about....

but the CA is not a fine, it's an assessment. The fine associated with the FTA is $75 + PA's. and the FTA can be dismissed and a civil assessment still be charged, which may have happened in this case.

If I remember correctly, the CA goes to the collection agency
 
You're getting closer Steven... Yet not close enough. The FTA charge (a misdemeanor) is added to the underlying offense of speeding is pursuant to VC 40508 which in turn, allows the court to add the civil assessment of $300 pursuant to PC 1214.1... Regardless of the reason for the FTA, it still remains to be a "misdemeanor charge" that must be adjudicated in court (or via TBD). So again, if the OP failed to address the misdemeanor FTA charge in his TBD (i.e. he failed to provide the court with a plausible defense to failing to appear), and despite the fact that the speeding charge was dismissed, he was found guilty of the misdemeanor FTA charge and the associated fine amount (civil assessment of $300) was deducted from his bail amount that was on hold with the court.

You invented her a charge the OP did not say she had. You have no clue that she was charged with 40508a. FYI: Our court doesnt use that for several years now and its not automatic and not all courts still do that. I do see FTA holds from other courts where they do still use it... so I know some do. YOu dont have to have that charge for FTA "stuff" (holds, assessments,etc) to occur. Your googlefoo failed you..

If they are charged with 40508a I would expect the OP to say so.. since, as you were able to discover, it is a completely separate and distinct misdemeanor charge that a court can add. If that is another count she is charged with, she can state it and I will address it... but AGAIN, that is a charge - a civil assessment is NOT a charge, it is.. an assessment. They are not a "package deal", they are completely different and each court is different as to how they go about those.
 
Last edited:
PC 1210.1 has nothing to do with a traffic infraction or with the associated civil assessment that is tied to a failure to appear.

A civil assessment that is associated with a traffic infraction is applied pursuant to Vehicle code section 40508 and comes as a result of the defendant willfully violation his/her promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court. That becomes a separate charge that is adjudicated independently of the underlying offense (i.e. the traffic infraction in this case).

It sounds to me like the OP violated his lawfully granted promise to appear in court, the court added a separate FTA charge, and subsequently added the civil assessment to the fine amount that is due. The defendant then submitted a TBD, wherein he offered the court with a defense against the traffic infraction (speeding) and yet he didn't address the FTA/Civil assessment at all. He was later found "not guilty" on the underlying offense (speeding) yet due to the fact that he failed to offer the court any viable defense for the FTA he was found "guilty" of that charge, and was fined accordingly by deducting the fine amount from the bail he had previously submitted.

In other words, just because you were found "not guilty" of speeding, does not necessarily mean that the FTA charge will be dismissed. So you need to contact the court to further establish why and when the FTA was added; if it was added because of an error made ny the court/clerk, then you've got a pretty good argument to justify requesting a refund of the full amount that you posted. otherwise, your chances of getting such a refund are pretty limited.
Sorry, didnt notice you made this post when i posted above ...

You literally have no clue what you are talking about .. I apologize for putting 1210.1 PC though ..I deal with drug cases and prop 36 a lot more than civil assessments on tickets, I meant 1214.1 PC for civil assessments and those ARE added in traffic cases and those are $300. I was surprised by the OP because our court wouldnt impose that on a FTA dismissal (I guess more accurately stated: the judge vacates it if the case is dismissed), so I have never seen that... but that doesnt make it illegal-as I said, every court is different. You might google that PC up before you post on this subject again (and if you knew this process for real should have known that PC anyway and simply corrected it for me as a typo and not gone off on 40508 VC that no one mentioned and is NOT a civil assessment)... and even if she had a 40508 that was dismissed, that still has nothing to do with a civil assessment. You are way off. WAY off. Embarrassingly so. In fact, we'll just forget this whole thread for you, ok?
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top