VC 22348(B) - Can you do a Trial by Written Declaration on this charge?

[mcshiny]

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

I got charged with a VC 22348(B), exceeding 100+MPH, while driving on I-5. I was wondering, is it possible to do a Trial by Written Declaration (TBWD) on this charge? I have yet to go to my arraignment and was wondering if it's possible. I have read testimonials from others that say they have done it, but I am not sure if they had done it before arraignment. For my charge, it says a mandatory court appearance is required, although if I can get around it, I'd like to do a TBWD since I live in Northern California and going all the way to Southern California would be sort of a hassle. I understand what what I did was very stupid, so no need to tell me that. I'm actually stressing over this whole ordeal a lot and has definitely made me drive a lot more carefully, so it's done it's job. Now I just need to deal with the consequences. Any help would be extremely appreciated.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Two issue...

1. Mandatory court appearance at your arraignment means just that... You must appear yourself or you can hire an attorney to appear on your behalf.

2. Yes you can do a TBD for a 22348(b). You can request that when you appear at your arraignment, post bail and the forms will be mailed to you with a due date to submit your declaration by.

 

[mcshiny]

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know how much my bail may possibly be? Say for some crazy reason, I didn't have enough money on me. Can they jail me right then and there? Of course, I'll bring the necessary money. I am just curious, since there was no bail posted on my courtesy notice and why they would force me to appear.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Do you happen to know how much my bail may possibly be?

According to the 2009 California Uniform Bail Schedule, it should be approximately $760.

Say for some crazy reason, I didn't have enough money on me. Can they jail me right then and there?

Absolutely not! You will not have to do jail time for an infraction and merely because you cannot post bail. If you don't have the money right then and there, ask the court for an extension, save up and then request your TBWD... You are entitled to one automatic 60 day extension after which you can request more time if need be.

I am just curious, since there was no bail posted on my courtesy notice and why they would force me to appear.

I can't tell you why there was no bail listed on your courtesy notice. As for the mandatory court appearance, and although there is no statute that requires that, California courts make it a mandatory appearance by way of local court rules.

Good luck!

 

[mcshiny]

Thanks for all the info, I_Got_Banned! I really appreciate. Does the bail amount usually wound up to be the cost of the fine? I hear about people posting bail, then if they plead guilty, the bail amount goes towards the fine. I was just curious as to what I should expect in terms of a fine. Thanks again for your assistance.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Thanks for all the info, I_Got_Banned! I really appreciate.

Not a problem... I wished I has better news/info to post...

Does the bail amount usually wound up to be the cost of the fine? I hear about people posting bail, then if they plead guilty, the bail amount goes towards the fine.

Usually, yes... unless you ask for and receive some sympathy from the judge in the way of a fine reduction. Although with a 22348, that's highly unlikely... But you could try. All he/she can do is say "no".

I was just curious as to what I should expect in terms of a fine.

The penalty includes the fine amount I previously posted as well as 2 violation points added to your record. Depending on who your insurer is, that might result in a hike in your premium rates. Depending on what amount your premium will increase by for the 3 year period that your record will have the 2 violation points, and in addition to the fine amount, it maybe wise to consult with an attorney seeking some advice as to whether a dismissal is possible or not.

How fast were you going and how did the officer measure your speed? (both should be on your citation).

So you might want to consult with an attorney.

 

[Jim_bo]

This issue has come up before. The courts are very loose with their "mandatory appearances". The CVC is clear in that it allows for handling the entire issue via US mail for ANY infraction. And 22348(b) IS an infraction. There are lots of people who say "of course appearance is mandatory... it says so on the letter..." But I have yet to see anyone show me a statutory or case law that makes appearance mandatory for any infraction.

How fast were you charged with driving?? I have seen 22348(b) written for someone doing 101mph. This is so stupid because the charge is for 1mph over the limit. If you were 105 or more, I may look for other alternatives, but between 100 and 105, I may pursue a dismissal.

 

[mcshiny]

Usually, yes... unless you ask for and receive some sympathy from the judge in the way of a fine reduction. Although with a 22348, that's highly unlikely... But you could try. All he/she can do is say "no".

How fast were you going and how did the officer measure your speed? (both should be on your citation).

So you might want to consult with an attorney.

How fast were you charged with driving?? I have seen 22348(b) written for someone doing 101mph. This is so stupid because the charge is for 1mph over the limit. If you were 105 or more, I may look for other alternatives, but between 100 and 105, I may pursue a dismissal.

I was going (according to the CHP officer) 102+MPH and he was using a radar? Sounds kind of iffy to me. Like why would you put a +? It's so ambiguous and it includes anything 102MPH and thereafter. Shouldn't the gun have given an exact reading? Kind of weird to me. There were two cars driving on the right side of me so initially when I saw the cop parked on the side, I was like "Oh shoot!" But I wasn't sure who he was shooting the gun at, so I was kind of waiting to see if he was going to actually pursue anyone. It turned out to be me. So once I saw him even start to move his car, I actually started moving to the side of the road and slowed down so as not to make him have to chase me down.

I hope somehow, someway, I can get a dismissal (with TBWD, hoping the officer doesn't respond or show up for the Trial de Novo if it comes to that) or at least bump the charge down. Does anyone know what kind of charge I should aim for? I'm not exactly sure what that would be. A VC 22350? Also, I actually got a speeding ticket last June 2008 as well. My first ticket ever. I was going like 50MPH in a 40MPH zone. If I had known about my rights and my options, I would have fought that but I ended up going to traffic school and having it taken off my record. Another question I have is, will the judge be able to see that speeding violation I had even though I had it cleared off? Can that be used against me?

I was thinking of actually just doing the TBWD and see if the court will accept it, even though I technically shouldn't be allowed to. Just to see what happens. I plan on doing a TBWD anyway so writing one up early shouldn't be a problem. Does anyone recommend I request discovery as well? I've heard on some sites the pros and cons of doing it. But is it true that if they don't provide discovery to me, it can be used as grounds for a dismissal?

 

[HighwayMan]

I don't care what state or what court it is, getting a speeding violation of 102 miles per hour (whatever the speed zone) dismissed outright is not reasonable unless there is a major problem with the citation.

 

[HighwayMan]

How fast were you charged with driving?? I have seen 22348(b) written for someone doing 101mph. This is so stupid because the charge is for 1mph over the limit. If you were 105 or more, I may look for other alternatives, but between 100 and 105, I may pursue a dismissal.

Are you being facetious? Where is the speed limit 100 mph? I've never seen that anywhere.

 

[CdwJava]

I was going (according to the CHP officer) 102+MPH and he was using a radar? Sounds kind of iffy to me. Like why would you put a +?

Possibly because he got a radar lock at 102, but visually estimated your speed at higher than that.

Are you being facetious? Where is the speed limit 100 mph? I've never seen that anywhere.

It's a California thing ...

Because the offense charged is for doing OVER 100 MPH ... if it is "only" 1 MPH over 100 MPH, and the tolerance for error in the radar/lidar device is +/- 2 MPH, then it could convince a judge to dismiss based upon reasonable doubt. A speed of 99 MPH - or even exactly 100 MPH - would not be sufficient to support the charge of 22348(b) as it requires the driver travel "at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour."

- Carl

 

[HighwayMan]

Got it.

California seems a bit strange sometimes - tough to get used to!

 

[CdwJava]

Got it.

California seems a bit strange sometimes - tough to get used to!

They could have hit him with exceeding the maximum speed limit which would be much easier to sustain than the over 100 section. Most ARE sustained, but it would have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the defense.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

I was thinking of actually just doing the TBWD and see if the court will accept it, even though I technically shouldn't be allowed to. Just to see what happens.

why would you say that? The VC is clear that you SHALL be given a TBWD if you choose to do so.

I plan on doing a TBWD anyway so writing one up early shouldn't be a problem. Does anyone recommend I request discovery as well? I've heard on some sites the pros and cons of doing it. But is it true that if they don't provide discovery to me, it can be used as grounds for a dismissal?

I can't think of a reason NOT to do a discovery request. What would the "con" be?? Too much information? BTW, discovery isn't a good argument for dismissal, but it can be a way to exclude evidence which results in a dismissal.

I don't care what state or what court it is, getting a speeding violation of 102 miles per hour (whatever the speed zone) dismissed outright is not reasonable unless there is a major problem with the citation.

Sorry dude... A prosecution should be based on what the law IS... not what you think it SHOULD be.


Carl,

Thanks for getting my back. But, I am curious as to why you made no comment about the mandatory appearance. Do you have no opinion, or do you choose to be silent about the courts overstepping their authority???

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks for getting my back.

Jim, if you are correct, you are correct.

But, I am curious as to why you made no comment about the mandatory appearance. Do you have no opinion, or do you choose to be silent about the courts overstepping their authority???

I have no real opinion on the matter as there appears to be contradictory points on the issue. The Vehicle Code appears to allow for - perhaps even require - that there be no mandatory appearance. On the other hand, the rules of court DO permit this. As I do not tend to believe the courts throughout the state are in the habit of regularly breaking the law, I have to assume that there is another clause or case law somewhere that grants them that authority. I see no point in arguing the issue because it would degenerate into "yes it is, no it isn't ..." arguments which are pointless. So, why get into that fray?

- Carl