found guilty of running FOUR consecutive red lights

[BelizeBreeze]

**A: shall you change your user name to you are bragging.

I think he has been swimming and is experiencing 'shrinkage'

 

[seniorjudge]

FYI, there is no such thing as dismissing after the fact, you have to pay full fine, then if you believe you did not do it, find a lawyer and do the appeal of the full charge.

"...After the six- month period, the trial court struck the guilty plea, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge...."

http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-4197.htm

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA WILLIAM J. JOURNEY, Supreme Court No. S-5672 Petitioner, Court of Appeals No. A-4018 v. Superior Court No. 4FY-S89-17 CR STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent [No. 4197 - May 12, 1995]


sukharev, this is actually a pretty common procedure. Hope this helps.

 

[sukharev]

"...After the six- month period, the trial court struck the guilty plea, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge...."

http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-4197.htm

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA WILLIAM J. JOURNEY, Supreme Court No. S-5672 Petitioner, Court of Appeals No. A-4018 v. Superior Court No. 4FY-S89-17 CR STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent [No. 4197 - May 12, 1995]


sukharev, this is actually a pretty common procedure. Hope this helps.

And you said before there is no trial after trial...

If you read carefully, it says: "Alaska Statute 12.55.085 authorizes our trial courts to suspend the imposition of a sentence and thereafter set aside a conviction if the defendant successfully completes a probationary period."

I believe our sharpshooter did not even start his probabtion yet

This example is from Alaska, too, how about one from NY?

 

[JETX]

"...After the six- month period, the trial court struck the guilty plea, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge...."

ROTFLMAO!!!

Did you even READ the cite you provided?? If so, you would see that:
1) It is NOT a dismissal of a conviction, as you claim can be done.
2) The sentence you excerpted isn't even from the opinion of the court. It is simply a reference to what would NORMALLY be available upon completion of a successful SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence).

The FULL paragraph (that you didn't read) says:
"On the merits, Journey's SIS is not a "disposition in his favor"; pursuant to 6 AAC 60.100. Journey's case is similar to City of St. Paul v. Froysland where the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an expunction request. After her arrest, Froysland pled guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct, and received a six- month stay of imposition of sentence pursuant to Minnesota's probation statute. The trial court instructed the defendant that if she did not get into any more trouble, the charge would be dismissed, and that after dismissal she would be able to state that she had not been convicted of the offense. After the six-month period, the trial court struck the guilty plea, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge. However, when Froysland attempted to obtain the return of criminal identification data under a statute that provided for such return "pon the determination of all pending criminal actions or proceedings in favor of the arrested person" the City of St. Paul denied her request."

And even if your citation was on-point (it isn't), it very specifically says VACATED the conviction... which most of us know is NOT the same as the mysterious "DISMISSAL of conviction" you claim exists.

 

[seniorjudge]

And you said before there is no trial after trial...

Okay, I am not sure what you mean, but here's the deal:

In some kinds of cases (civil and criminal) there is a trial.

In these kinds of cases, if you don't like the results, you can get a trial de novo.

That means there is a new trial which pretends that the first trial never happened.

If you don't like the results of that trial, you can appeal it.

An appeals case may have hearings galore, but there is never another trial (unless, obviously, the appeals court sends it back to the trial court and orders a new trial).

If that didn't answer your question, then rephrase it.

 

[DevonL2]

Not to interrupt your legal debate or anything there fellows .. but to the original poster; how in gods name do you run FOUR not one... not two ... and no not three, but FOUR red lights?! Who does this?!

 

[seniorjudge]

Not to interrupt your legal debate or anything there fellows .. but to the original poster; how in gods name do you run FOUR not one... not two ... and no not three, but FOUR red lights?! Who does this?!

Apparently our original poster....

 

[JETX]

Okay, I am not sure what you mean, but here's the deal:

In some kinds of cases (civil and criminal) there is a trial.

In these kinds of cases, if you don't like the results, you can get a trial de novo.

Sorry, but WRONG!!!
Most appeals are NOT 'trial de novo'. Only those from a lesser (small claims) court. Appeals from rulings from courts of record are NOT 'De Novo'.... and are on the legal merits/challenges only. The only other De Novo rulings on appeal are when the trial matter is reversed and remanded back to the original court for a re-trial.
And of course, mistrials are De Novo.

If you don't like the results of that trial, you can appeal it.

Again... NOT TRUE!!
In a 'normal' court (not small claims), the appeal must be based on some challenge of law.

appeal
1) v. to ask a higher court to reverse the decision of a trial court after final judgment or other legal ruling. After the lower court judgment is entered into the record, the losing party (appellant) must file a notice of appeal, request transcripts or other records of the trial court (or agree with the other party on an "agreed-upon statement"), file briefs with the appeals court citing legal reasons for over-turning the ruling, and show how those reasons (usually other appeal decisions called "precedents") relate to the facts in the case. No new evidence is admitted on appeal, for it is strictly a legal argument. The other party (Respondent or appellee) usually files a responsive brief countering these arguments. The appellant then can counter that response with a final brief. If desired by either party, they will then argue the case before the appeals court, which may sustain the original ruling, reverse it, send it back to the trial court, or reverse in part and confirm in part. For state cases there are Supreme Courts (called Courts of Appeal in New York and ****land) which are the highest appeals courts, and most states have lower appeals courts as well. For Federal cases there are Federal Courts of Appeal in ten different "circuits," and above them is the Supreme Court, which selectively hears only a few appeals at the highest level. 2) n. the name for the process of appealing, as in "he has filed an appeal."

 

[You Are Guilty]

Not to derail this fantastic thread, but NY appeals first go to the Appellate Division. (And depending on their ruling, you may be able to take it to the Court of Appeals.)

And now back to our show, already in progress.



PS: If Huge Member is unacceptable, I'll take Tripod instead

 

[seniorjudge]

Not to derail this fantastic thread, but NY appeals first go to the Appellate Division. (And depending on their ruling, you may be able to take it to the Court of Appeals.)

And now back to our show, already in progress.



PS: If Huge Member is unacceptable, I'll take Tripod instead

Okay.

Mind if I call you TRI for short?

 

[ENASNI]

This is like King Kong vs Godzilla... with a little of Ron Jeremy thrown in.



Getting my popcorn... don't stop.

 

[JETX]

I'm going to call you pod.... for short.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I'm going to call you pod.... for short.

You can just use my real name: Hugh G. Unitt

 

[sukharev]

You can just use my real name: Hugh G. Unitt

gee, you've got to be careful with those blue pills

 

[JETX]

You can just use my real name: Hugh G. Unitt

Hugh G UNFIT???