Ticket not submitted and filed with the court - TR130

[AgentSmithers]

What is the name of your state? California

Hi everyone, I was recently cited with a TR130 form for an infraction. The TR130 form is wwaaaaaaayyyy outdated and a Demurrer needs to be filed to challenge the complaint but the Ranger/Officer hasn't submitted it to the court and it been several several weeks and the date to appear on the ticket is coming due. Is anyone familiar about what actually happens in this case?

An appearance still needs to be made as the promise to appear is located on the ticket (Signed) but if done correctly is the expectation that once the person cited checks in with the clerk to go to the Arraignment the clerk will notify the Agency and ask for the ticket to be resubmitted? I'm a bit blurred on what the process is.

Is the duty of the person who is cited to check every week for the next year to see if the citation has been submitted to the court?
Is your promise to appear fulfilled at the point?
When the ticket is finally submitted I assume if not checked for every week by the citee then its possible an FTA would be issued at that point?
Any pointers on how to file the demurrer while in this waiting stage of the citation being filed or there just aren't anything that can be done but sit and wait to see if the Ranger/Officer ever files the ticket then handle it then?

Thanks for the Guidance!

 

[Zigner]

Why do you feel a demurer is appropriate? Can an older TR130 not be used?

 

[CdwJava]

Is there really some crucial information missing on the current form that was lacking on the old form? Or, are you merely shooting in the dark for a "get out of jail free" card?

 

[AgentSmithers]

Why do you feel a demurer is appropriate? Can an older TR130 not be used?

Hi Zigner! Yes, that is correct sir. They can be used but it won't meet Rules of the Court 4.103 and will fail satisfying CVC40513.

CdwJava,
No sir, The Demurrer is really outside of the scope of the purpose of my post but here in Cali there are a few reasons to demurrer the ticket, The lack of information is not normally a route you wanna go, A legitimate demurrer being granted in that regards are pretty rare as I've never seen that happen before (successfully). Peace officers make blips on tickets all the time but not to the level where I'd say a demurrer would be sustained. However, there are more technical reasons to demurrer such as the reason above that will give better results.

My question is more of guidance on the proper way to address the citation. I mean predictably I'm going to pay this specific citation but afaik right now even If I wanted to get up and pay it right now I can't because it's not even filed.

Thanks both for the quick response!

 

[FlyingRon]

Smithers. Demurrer is a noun. The verb is Demur. You've not answered the question. What makes you think the older version of the form doesn't comply with 4.103 or the 40513? There's not anything on its face that appears to indicate non-compliance. Pretty much the gist of both of those is that the NOTA filed has to be the facsimile of the one given to you.

 

[AgentSmithers]

Smithers. Demurrer is a noun. The verb is Demur. You've not answered the question. What makes you think the older version of the form doesn't comply with 4.103 or the 40513? There's not anything on its face that appears to indicate non-compliance. Pretty much the gist of both of those is that the NOTA filed has to be the facsimile of the one given to you.

Sorry, I thought I did. Yes on the citation there is a revision date located on the ticket. The latest revision of the TR-130 was released in 2015/2016 and not 2005 like the one issued. It's far out of date.

 

[FlyingRon]

So? Unless you have a law or something stating that the older ones have suddenly become invalid, it's a moot point.

 

[AgentSmithers]

So? Unless you have a law or something stating that the older ones have suddenly become invalid, it's a moot point.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. Ron the rules of the court are clear "And must comply with the requirements in the current version of the judicial council instructions. In the latest release, they added several fields and made changes from the last form and there for the older forms do not comply with the latest requirements? The way I am interpreting your question is like I have to show I'm being harmed and I'm just not aware of that being a requirement for a demurrer to be sustained. Also, We are kinda driving off topic with the Demurrer, I am more inquiring about the backend processing that takes place between the court and the citing agency's and about the fulfilment of the promise to appear? Thanks!

"
a) Traffic offenses

A printed or electronic notice to appear that is issued for any violation of the Vehicle Code other than a felony or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses must be prepared and filed with the court on Automated Traffic Enforcement System Notice to Appear (form TR-115), Traffic/Nontraffic Notice to Appear (form TR-130), Electronic Traffic/Nontraffic Notice to Appear (4-inch format) (form TR-135), or Electronic Traffic/Nontraffic Notice to Appear (3-inch format) (form TR-145), and must comply with the requirements in the current version of the Judicial Council's instructions, Notice to Appear and Related Forms (form TR-INST).
"

 

[Zigner]

Best of luck to ya AgentSmithers. As an aside - perhaps you if you simply complied with the law you wouldn't have to spend so much time grasping at straws...

 

[FlyingRon]

An old TR-130 is still a TR-130. You're making up things that don't exist. The law doesn't say the current version of the form, just that it must comply with the current Judicial Council's instructions. You've not indicated anything that says the TR-130 used doesn't comply. Most of the changes to form involve things that are ancillary to the judicial process.

I've got the current and the 2004 versions sitting in front of me. The only different appears to be the addition of a field for the place that the officers attestation was made. But hell, have at it in court.

 

[CdwJava]

And, the language in the CVC states that the notice to appear must be made on "a form approved by the Judicial Council" ... no mention of THE most recent form.

However, the typical response to a demurrer seems to be the filing of a complaint by the DA. It often has the effect only of delaying the inevitable appearance ... and making sure that the DA and the court are alerted to the matter when the DA would otherwise be oblivious and the court would be blase to the whole matter.

 

[AgentSmithers]

Best of luck to ya AgentSmithers. As an aside - perhaps you if you simply complied with the law you wouldn't have to spend so much time grasping at straws...

Thanks, Zinger, As an aside I'll remember to come straight to you for life advice when needed. Here, I even checked.. it's even unregistered, maybe run ya about 12 dollars a year to register it, http://www.lifeadvice.com/

An old TR-130 is still a TR-130. You're making up things that don't exist. The law doesn't say the current version of the form, just that it must comply with the current Judicial Council's instructions. You've not indicated anything that says the TR-130 used doesn't comply. Most of the changes to form involve things that are ancillary to the judicial process.

I've got the current and the 2004 versions sitting in front of me. The only difference appears to be the addition of a field for the place that the officer's attestation was made. But hell, have at it in court.

Ron,
This is not the scope of the post and I'm not making things up. Discussing the Demurrer isn't going to make any traction but an example of "and must comply with the requirements in the current version of the Judicial Council's instructions" would be a field being added to the TR-130 form. There are tons of changes that are made to this form in the last revision so I'm not sure on how the old ones would comply with the request requirements if the Mandatory fields aren't there in the first place. AGAIN THIS DOES NOT MATTER, LETS ALL AGREE IT WILL GET OVERRULLED, I'm okay moving past that point with this being the case. I'm more wondering



Is the duty of the person who is cited to check every week for the next year to see if the citation has been submitted to the court?
Is your promise to appear fulfilled at the point?
When the ticket is finally submitted I assume if not checked for every week by the citee then its possible an FTA would be issued at that point?

 

[CdwJava]

There is a location, date, and time of appearance on the citation. The defendant's obligation is to appear on that court date for arraignment. If it has not been submitted by the time the court date has arrived, then there may be other options available to either seek to dismiss the matter, or go through the annoying task of checking back weekly. An old form MAY be sufficient to justify a demurrer, but all that will generally do will be to compel the DA of city attorney (depending on jurisdiction and how these things are handled) to file the matter via Complaint. I suppose delaying the matter might be considered a "win" for some.

 

[AgentSmithers]

There is a location, date, and time of appearance on the citation. The defendant's obligation is to appear on that court date for arraignment. If it has not been submitted by the time the court date has arrived, then there may be other options available to either seek to dismiss the matter, or go through the annoying task of checking back weekly. An old form MAY be sufficient to justify a demurrer, but all that will generally do will be to compel the DA of city attorney (depending on jurisdiction and how these things are handled) to file the matter via Complaint. I suppose delaying the matter might be considered a "win" for some.

Thanks, Yeah I'm unaware if there are other options. Its interesting situation you can be put in. If I get any traction I'll post back here and let you know.