judge denied continuance for no good cause

[brenside]

What is the name of your state? California
I recieved a speeding ticket in California for doing 90 on a 65. Plead not guilty, the first court date the officer was granted contiuance for scheduling conflict. The second court date issued in the middle of the week. I am a DOT in spector also living 8 hrs drive to the court. I ask for continuance unable to attend at the scheduled time due to employment constraints. The court denied my request, notifying me 4 days before trial. I phoned the first oppertunity, with the clerk sating a note would be wriiten but the judge will find me guilty if i dont appear. I pleaded with employer and drove all night without sleep till my vehicle broke down 2 hours from court. I phined before court to explain, the court found me guilty anyway. Unsettling feeling of how this judge acted impartialy and fairly. How did this judge not violate my rights?

 

[quincy]

What was the given reason for the continuance? Never mind. I see you have edited your post.

On what day of the week was the original hearing scheduled?

You live 8 hours away from the courthouse?

 

[brenside]

My employer required me to ask for the trial to be set on a friday or monday to limit the absense to one day, which was difficult to do on a wednesday.

 

[quincy]

My employer required me to ask for the trial to be set on a friday or monday to limit the absense to one day, which was difficult to do on a wednesday.

Courts generally have specific hearings scheduled for a particular day of the week. It is possible Wednesdays are the only day for the court to hear speeding ticket cases.

 

[brenside]

When i spoke with the clerk a note was written to the judge asking if it could be scheduled on a future wednesday because in 3 weeks time the time could be afforded.

 

[quincy]

The problem is that continuances are granted at the discretion of the judge. The judge does not have to agree to change any hearing date and your hearing has been rescheduled once already.

Did you check the court website to see what it says about continuances?

 

[Taxing Matters]

How did this judge not violate my rights?

The problem is that in general you don't have a right to a continuance. And the judge doesn't have to have good cause for denying the motion. California Rules of Court 4.113, which governs continuances in criminal cases, including traffic and infraction cases, instead states the following:

Rule 4.113. Motions and grounds for continuance of criminal case set for trial​

​

Motions to continue the trial of a criminal case are disfavored and will be denied unless the moving party, under Penal Code section 1050, presents affirmative proof in open court that the ends of justice require a continuance.​

So in the end it is up to the judge to decide if you have good grounds for the continuance; the judge need not have good grounds for denying it. The reason for granting the continuance for the officer's "scheduling conflict" would depend on what that conflict was. If the problem was that the officer had to testify in another court at that same time, that will pretty much always be good reason for a continuance since the courts won't ding the state for the officer not being available due to the courts already having the officer appear in another case at the same time.

However, all is not lost for you here. Rule of Court 4.106 does allow you to file motion asking for the court to vacate the judgment against you for failure to appear if you can show good cause for the failure to appear. It may be that the court would find that your car troubles getting to court would be enough to qualify. Can't hurt to try it, you'll be no worse off for taking a stab at it.

 

[zddoodah]

Unless you can articulate what right(s) you believe were violated and how, this is a rather pointless question. The bottom line is that you don't have a right to a continuance, and I suspect the court wasn't interested in a third continuance even though the prior continuances were at the officer's request and not yours. Did you have any sort of viable defense to the ticket?

 

[quincy]

It would have been the second continuance not the third. The first request by the officer was granted and the second request by brenside was denied.

 

[brenside]

What was the given reason for the continuance? Never mind. I see you have edited your post.

On what day of the week was the original hearing scheduled?

You live 8 hours away from the courthouse?

it was also a Wednesday

 

[quincy]

it was also a Wednesday

It could very well be, then, that your judge schedules speeding cases only on Wednesdays, hence the reason for your request for a Monday or Friday hearing being denied.

Following is a link to San Francisco County’s Superior Court website with information on how traffic ticket continuances are handled. You can check your own court’s website for information that applies to your case.
https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/traffic/when-in-court

The reason you might want to learn more about continuances in your court is to better determine if there is reason to appeal.

Did you have a defense to the speeding charge - or were you just hoping to argue speed to get the fine reduced?

 

[brenside]

Unless you can articulate what right(s) you believe were violated and how, this is a rather pointless question. The bottom line is that you don't have a right to a continuance, and I suspect the court wasn't interested in a third continuance even though the prior continuances were at the officer's request and not yours. Did you have any sort of viable defense to the ticket?

I believe i do people vs Scott William Peterson. Calibration of radar tuning forks. Matters of federal law and trafffic survey. Officer used radar gun pointing up hill as i traveled down hill which is considered entrapment and survey for traffic speeds cannot be conducted on hills and must be conducted on flat ground due to the varibles caused to speed on hills

 

[quincy]

I believe i do people vs Scott William Peterson. Calibration of radar tuning forks. Matters of federal law and trafffic survey. Officer used radar gun pointing up hill as i traveled down hill which is considered entrapment and survey for traffic speeds cannot be conducted on hills and must be conducted on flat ground due to the varibles caused to speed on hills

You can speak to a traffic attorney in your area then to see about filing an appeal. The attorney can tell you whether your argument has a chance of being successful.

 

[brenside]

It could very well be, then, that your judge schedules speeding cases only on Wednesdays, hence the reason for your request for a Monday or Friday hearing being denied.

Following is a link to San Francisco County’s Superior Court website with information on how traffic ticket continuances are handled. You can check your own court’s website for information that applies to your case.
https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/traffic/when-in-court

The reason you might want to learn more about continuances in your court is to better determine if there is reason to appeal.

Did you have a defense to the speeding charge - or were you just hoping to argue speed to get the fine reduced?

MUTCD Federal manual for traffic law the guide lines are clear that speed limits determined by city or state engineers conducting radar survey of traffic on flat level stretch of road. I was traveling down hill with the officer below when he claims his radar clocked me at 90mph. I was a head of 7 cars after coming a round the front two from previous passing lane and hit resume on cruise control which was previously set at 70 mph

 

[quincy]

Okay. You might want to consider an appeal. You will no doubt benefit from having an attorney assist you.

Good luck.