Got a Ticket for a Violation, but Found Guilty on Another??

[FDSLR]

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

I got a ticket from a red light camera charging me with violation 21453a. I pled not guilty and filed a trial by written declaration. In the decision I received back from the court, violation 21453a was dismissed, but they found me guilty on a new violation 21453b? If I request a new trial and go to court, can I win this case as I was not cited for 21453b in the ticket?

 

[Zigner]

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

I got a ticket from a red light camera charging me with violation 21453a. I pled not guilty and filed a trial by written declaration. In the decision I received back from the court, violation 21453a was dismissed, but they found me guilty on a new violation 21453b? If I request a new trial and go to court, can I win this case as I was not cited for 21453b in the ticket?

The charge was amended...
It's only money if you try, right?

 

[Maestro64]

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

I got a ticket from a red light camera charging me with violation 21453a. I pled not guilty and filed a trial by written declaration. In the decision I received back from the court, violation 21453a was dismissed, but they found me guilty on a new violation 21453b? If I request a new trial and go to court, can I win this case as I was not cited for 21453b in the ticket?

Well did you fail to yield the right away to a pedestrian or another car when making a right turn on red. That is what they are claiming you did now.

 

[FDSLR]

Well yes my fine was reduced to $100 on the 21453b violation. I'm just wondering what's my chance on winning as I wasn't cited for that in the ticket. I don't know if it's proper and legal for them to "amend" my citation this way. I have to go to court anyway as I'd like to go to traffic school (I'm eligible). So if I do nothing, I'm out $100 and 1 point on my record. If I go to court and lose, I'll be paying the $100 + traffic school.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

What did it say in your "Notice of Decision"?

The charge was amended...

Amended by whom & when?

Isn't he entitled to some sort of notice that it was amended so that he can properly defend himself?

 

[JIMinCA]

The charge was amended...
It's only money if you try, right?

The court doesn't ammend charges... the cop can. The court SCREWED the OP.

And, it's not "only money if he tries", it's only a loss of liberty if he doesn't!!!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Well did you fail to yield the right away to a pedestrian or another car when making a right turn on red. That is what they are claiming you did now.

But how can they even begin to claim that? This was a "red light camera ticket & the only evidence they have against him is a flash of a second or so before he turned and a flash of a second or so after he turned.
I just don't see how an amendment could even happen (logistically) in a TBD without him receiving proper timely notice of such amendment?
Like Jim said, somebody got screwed here & its not "the People of the State of California"

I have to go to court anyway as I'd like to go to traffic school (I'm eligible). . . . I'll be paying the $100 + traffic school.

I don't think going to court before the trial will do you any good. You can make a decision to forgo your Trial de Novo and go to traffic school but my guess is they'll tell you that you should have asked for traffic school either prior to the TBD or in your TBD. . .
OR you can proceed with the court trial and ask the Judge for Traffic school at or during the trial.

Also, don't count on traffic school being a viable option!

I'm not arguing whether you're eligible or not, but just by assuming you are, does not obligate the Judge to grant you your request.

He can straight up turn you down... And there is no legal requirement for him to state a reason as to why he's turned you down.

 

[Maestro64]

Well since the op never shared what he wrote in the TBD, he could have admitted to doing a right turn on red and form the picture it showed he did not stop first therefore failed to yield or there was a pedestrian or car in the picture.

Your correct the court can not amend a ticket, however they can find you guilt of a lesser offense base on the fact presented or what the Op admitted. We know most people are found guilty in court by their own words. In this case it sounds like this is what might have happen.

Personally it is better to fight automatic red light tickets by going to court and win on the grounds that your accuser (the camera and the person viewing the tape) are not present in court and they violated your right to confront your accuser, assuming it is not a civil offense.

 

[Zigner]

The court doesn't ammend charges... the cop can. The court SCREWED the OP.

Fair enough

And, it's not "only money if he tries", it's only a loss of liberty if he doesn't!!!

That is an interesting perspective

 

[FDSLR]

Thank you guys for chiming in... In my Notice of Decision, Violation #1 21453A was dismissed, which was the only violation I was cited for in my ticket. Then the court found me guilty on Violation #2 21453B, which was not in my ticket. It doesn't say anything about the charge being amended or provides any sort of explanation.

In my TBD, I only stated that "I stand by my plea of not guilty." So I'm pretty sure I didn't provide them with anything for them to further prove me guilty of any violation.

I read from this site: http://helpigotaticket.com/tut/tschool_out.html that I can still request traffic school even if I lose the case, and the judge cannot deny it? Quote from California Rule of Court 4.104(c)(3): A defendant who is otherwise eligible for traffic violator school is not made ineligible by entering a plea other than guilty or by exercising his or her right to trial.

 

[The Occultist]

I think you're somewhat misinterpreting. You're right, it won't make you ineligible in and of itself, but it's still an option the courts must grant to you and there is no obligation for them to do so.