Need advice on a guilty verdict appeal

[gecrcacz]

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

I just received a guilty verdict on 21453A and I need to appeal. I don't understand why I was found guilty when it was clear that I did stop on the right spot. I was turning righ on a street with the red light and because there was no sign of "no turn on red" after I yield and see it was safe to turn I turned right. Can you please explain to me if this is a clear violation of the law above. I sent a picture of the street wth my trial by declaration - traffic showing that I yield on the intersection and pictures of the street showing that there were no sign of "no turn on red". If somebody can give some pointers on how to present my appeal it will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Jim_bo]

If you have just done a TBWD, then you are not going to do an appeal... you will do a Trial de Novo (a new trial). Don't feel bad about your guilty verdict... it has been my experience that most TBWDs are simply rubber stamped "guilty". It is absolutely shameful, but that is the level of ambivilance you get when you deal with your traffic court judges.

You only have a short period of time to request your trial de novo... so do it now. Here is the form to do it: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/tr220.pdf

Now... keep in mind, when you go to court for your new trial, if the cop says you didn't stop... you will likely loose. When it's your word against the cop's... the truth doesn't matter.

Good luck.

 

[CdwJava]

Now... keep in mind, when you go to court for your new trial, if the cop says you didn't stop... you will likely loose. When it's your word against the cop's... the truth doesn't matter.

You're assuming that "the truth" is that he DID stop.

Note that he was not cited for turning on a red, he was cited for failing to stop on the red (CVC 21453(a)). The issue of the "no turn on red" sign is irrelevant. Apparently the officer did not observe the OP come to a complete stop. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. Apparently they have contrary points of view.

- Carl

 

[I_Got_Banned]

You're assuming that "the truth" is that he DID stop.

Note that he was not cited for turning on a red, he was cited for failing to stop on the red (CVC 21453(a)). The issue of the "no turn on red" sign is irrelevant. Apparently the officer did not observe the OP come to a complete stop. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. Apparently they have contrary points of view.

- Carl

I think the OP is under the wrong impression as well. He raises the point that there was NO "no turn on red" sign in his post.

I sent a picture of the street wth my trial by declaration - traffic . . . showing that there were no sign of "no turn on red".

gecrcacz,

I'/m referring to the part I underlined below...

I sent a picture of the street wth my trial by declaration - traffic showing that I yield on the intersection and pictures of the street showing that there were no sign of "no turn on red".

1st: How can you take a picture showing that you yielded on the intersection? And
2nd: Yielding means you rolled through instead of making a full stop at the limit line, checked for cross traffic and then proceeded to make your right turn.

My guess is that if your statement here resembles that which you gave the court on you TBD statement, you incriminated yourself by admitting to the violation.

I guess this one was not "rubber stamped" Jim_bo!

 

[Hey There]

Information is served .The ball is in your court.

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).

(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, etc.

In CA. a driver can ask for a new trial if done within 20 days of the date stated in the clerks certificate of mailing.
The request for a new trial is made on form 220 which can be downloaded from the Help! I Got A Ticket ! website OR from a court clerk OR from Judicial Council Forms website OR from the back of a book published by NOLO on contesting traffic tickets in CA.
It's a very simple form to fill out.
The driver can file this at the courthouse or mail it certified with a return receipt. The driver can also request a COPY of the officer's declaration at that time.
If the driver doesn't receive a trial date within 45 days of the request for a new trial he can file a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.
A driver can also ask that a different judge hear his trial.
A sample request is in the back of the book previously mentioned
as well as a request to have the trial recorded.(Good idea if the driver intends to appeal an adverse court decision).

Information on how to prepare for trial is provided on the above website and book which may be available from a local library.

Discovery can also be asked for in CA. Here the driver asks for a copy of the front and back of his traffic ticket, a video if one was made, and other information pertaining to his citation.
A friend then mails a copy of the request to the D.A. AND to the citing officer, certified, return receipt. A form to do this is available through the above mentioned website although it will need to be modified a little to send one to the citing officer.
The book published by NOLO also has a form that can be copied and instructions on filing for Discovery.

The key to any citation of this type is whether or not the officer's view was compromised. It has been my experience that objects viewed from different positions look different.

Good Luck,
Best regards,
Hey There

 

[Jim_bo]

You're assuming that "the truth" is that he DID stop.

Note that he was not cited for turning on a red, he was cited for failing to stop on the red (CVC 21453(a)). The issue of the "no turn on red" sign is irrelevant. Apparently the officer did not observe the OP come to a complete stop. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. Apparently they have contrary points of view.

- Carl

Nope... I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely recognizing that if it comes down to his word against the cop's... he will likely loose.

You have been around long enough to know.... truth and justice are usually irrelevant in traffic court.