Officer wrote my name incorrectly on ticket-dismissal?

[Jim_bo]

PC802 is just the statute of limitation. The several PC sections preceding 802 talks about statutes of limitations with everything else up to capital murder. This only speaks towards a maximum amount of time that a prosecution can commence. Note.... the cop is NOT the prosecutor and the filing of his ticket doesn't necessarily constitute the "commencement of prosecution". PC 802 does nothing to mitigate the responsibilities for the cop to file the ticketa as soon as practical as required by VC40506. Also note that 802 is from the penal code, which covers all criminal activities. 40506 is from the vehicle code which deals only with traffic offenses and obviously expresses the legislature's intent expedite prosecutions of these type of infractions.

Furthermore, this is only a secondary issue. The first issue I discussed is that the OP did in fact appear as promised. He is under no obligation to appear in the future without a properly served subpeona. But, it seems that you and zigner only want to engage in pointless arguments rather than provide anything helpful to the OP. Therefore, you limit your "rebuttals" to only small sections of a post that you have found something in a code that may be remotely related... although not necessarily applicable.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

This only speaks towards a maximum amount of time that a prosecution can commence. Note.... the cop is NOT the prosecutor and the filing of his ticket doesn't necessarily constitute the "commencement of prosecution".

WRONG...

California Penal Code Section 804.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, for the purpose of this chapter, prosecution for an offense is commenced when any of the following occurs:

(a) An indictment or information is filed.
(b) A complaint is filed charging a misdemeanor or infraction.
(c) The defendant is arraigned on a complaint that charges the defendant with a felony.
(d) An arrest warrant or bench warrant is issued, provided the warrant names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint.​

​

​

That, to me says the the filing of the citation (which senves as the "complaint" in an infraction) is in fact when prosecution is commenced.

Also note that 802 is from the penal code, which covers all criminal activities.

And traffic infractions are included in as a criminal activities/offenses.

California Penal Code Section 16

Crimes and public offenses include:

1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; and
3. Infractions.​

​

​

Also...

California penal Code 19.7.

Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof.​

​

​

40506 is from the vehicle code which deals only with traffic offenses and obviously expresses the legislature's intent expedite prosecutions of these type of infractions.

And until you can show that “a reasonable period of time” does in any way mean “by the date shown on the citation” then you're not proving anything.

Furthermore, this is only a secondary issue.

It wasn't a secondary issue when you posed a direct question.
It wasn't a secondary issue when you disputed the validity of the information previously posted in this thread.
It wasn't a secondary issue when both of your posts in this thread addressed that same issue which you now are claiming is “secondary”...

The first issue I discussed is that the OP did in fact appear as promised. He is under no obligation to appear in the future without a properly served subpeona.

So are you advising the OP to toss the citation and forget about it until or unless he receives a subpoena to appear in court? Not very good advice, Jim-bo... After all, he gets a courtesy notice, (which is not a subpoena), fails to show (as per your suggestion and logic), he gets popped with an FTA and an added fine in upwards of $500.... Bad advice, Jim-bo!!!!

But, it seems that you and zigner only want to engage in pointless arguments rather than provide anything helpful to the OP.

Actually, and when it comes to Zigner's post, he provided the perfect answer to the question that you posed to me. His post also addresses the OP's contention that he did what he needed to do and it should all go away (which it won't).

As for me, I advised the OP to continue to check with the court until the citation is filed before he can proceed forward.

You on the other hand, have advised him to go to court and request a dismissal; when it is obvious that he can't appear in court to ask for a dismissal because BECAUSE HIS CITATION IS NOT IN THE SYSTEM, or, as PC section 804 clearly states: “action against him has not commenced as of yet”.

Therefore, you limit your "rebuttals" to only small sections of a post....

Sorry you feel that way... That is why I tried to cover your most recent post, line by line. I hope this meets your expectations.

... that you have found something in a code that may be remotely related...

"remotely related"???? Come on Jim... It is RIGHT ON.

...although not necessarily applicable.

Well, I hope that PC 16 and PC 804 will finally convince you that 802 is in fact more applicable than you will ever admit.

Fact is, this thread could have been one post shorter had it not been for you wanting to argue about something that you yourself have not provided any statute or citation that even remotely suggests that it is even close to being applicable. The only thing that you provided so far is your own GUESS as to what the legislature may have intended by CVC 40506.

And on that point, CVC 40506 says “reasonable period of time”... So let me make the challenge I presented you with in my last post a bit easier. Can you find a statute or a citation that defines “a reasonable period of time” as meaning “by the date on the citation”? Again, I am asking for a statute, a rule of court, case law... but NOT your own interpretation of what someone else had intended.

 

[dave la]

top of the ticket is dated aug 18 2008 and bottom of ticket where i sign is written aug 18 2009....so technically 1 year has passed right?

 

[CdwJava]

top of the ticket is dated aug 18 2008 and bottom of ticket where i sign is written aug 18 2009....so technically 1 year has passed right?

He erred. One year has not passed since he wrote the ticket.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

IGB,

While you make legitimate points in your post, your arrogance and smugness detract from your arguments.

To be clear... I stated earlier in this thread that I was not aware of any statute that allowed for a 1 year filing of infractions. I asked for someone to show me that information. However, the main point was, and still is, the OP is legally obligated to appear on the date on the ticket since his signature indicates his promise to appear. Beyond that, the OP has made no promise to appear and is under no order from the court to appear. A simple letter from the clerk's office should not be sufficient. However, if you can show me the statute that shows a letter from the clerk counts a proper service, I'll concede the point. But, you seem to cherry pick your arguments and you don't carry them through to completion.

Back to your arrogance. I didn't know of any statute allowing for a 1 year filing. I was asking for input/edification. The response I got was thin and incomplete. Had you and Zigner been more complete, by offering PC804 as support, your point would have been made easily. However, you like to leave a lot of "trust me" factor in your statements. I was asking for clarification and you only gave half the story. So, while you are technically correct, you have NOT taken the high ground and earned the smug arrogance you dump on this site. A bit of humility seems to be in order for you. However, if you really want to engage in a pissing contest, I can be quite animated about pointing out the multiple times you are WRONG. But then, how are you aiding the OPs by this childish behavior?

Furthermore, I still believe that while PC 802 gives a year to file a complaint, VC 40506 places the burden on the prosecution to file the compleaint as soon as practical. While your opinion may be that 40506 is simply wasted ink, I'm suggesting that the OP point out to the court that in situations like this places a burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that the infraction was filed AS SOON AS PRACTICAL. In the extreme case, clearly it would be unreasonable to have a defendant burdened with the responsibility of going through that telephone maze of the superior court every two weeks for a year just because the cop was lazy about filing. I would suggest that the interests of justice would warrant a dismissal based on 40506. It is a reasonable argument. But it is nothing more than that... an argument. That's what the law is about... making reasonable arguments.

So, the summary of this confrontation is:

1. I asked for information
2. You/Zigner provided half the story and suggested that you be trusted for the rest
3. I refuted the "trust me" portion without further evidence
4. You finally provided the whole story along with a long "nana-nana-boo-boo" post about how you are right and I am wrong.

You must have had a traumatic childhood that stunted your maturing process.

 

[Zigner]

Jim - you asked for a cite and I posted it. There was NO commentary on my part. I am sorry that you feel so intimidated by me that you feel the need to try make what I post seem inaccurate, even when you're admitting that you were uninformed.

 

[Jim_bo]

Jim - you asked for a cite and I posted it. There was NO commentary on my part. I am sorry that you feel so intimidated by me that you feel the need to try make what I post seem inaccurate, even when you're admitting that you were uninformed.

My comments were to IGB... not you. You response, while incomplete, was purely factual as you say. However, in this post, you step away from the small amount of high-ground you held and jumped right into the gutter with another nana-nana boo-boo post. Trust me, I would be more intimidated by a hamster than I would be by an intellectual midget like you. Your posts are rarely factual, rather they are normally antagonistic as this one is. If you would enjoy jumping into the pissing contest, I can post links to many threads where many people comment on the uselessness of your contributions.

You had a good thing going by not providing commentary. But you just couldn't leave well enough alone. You blew it.

 

[Zigner]

My comments were to IGB... not you.

Not true - but whatever. Your colors are shining bright today Jimmy

 

[Jim_bo]

Not true - but whatever. Your colors are shining bright today Jimmy

Your colors shine brightly every day, ziggy. By the way, let me know if you'd like for me to post a list of links where people discuss what a moron they think you are.

 

[Zigner]

Your colors shine brightly every day, ziggy. By the way, let me know if you'd like for me to post a list of links where people discuss what a moron they think you are.

Your obsession borders on stalking.