THE CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM PRESENTED BY LINDA

THE CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC COURT SYSTEM PRESENTED BY: LINDA A. IANNELLI Attorney at Law

Linda A. Iannelli Attorney at Law CALIFORNIA COURT SYSTEM CONSISTS OF: • SUPREME COURT • COURT OF APPEAL • SUPERIOR (TRIAL) COURTS • Appellate Division - infraction writs and appeals

TRAFFIC CITATIONS/ NOTICES TO APPEAR ARE ISSUED AS EITHER • MISDEMEANORS • INFRACTIONS

MISDEMEANORS: DIRECTLY FILED: • • • CITATION IS THE CHARGING DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO LEGAL CHALLENGES NO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR INVOVLED PROSECUTED BY COURT ENTITLED TO PRETRIAL/JURY TRIAL GENERALLY DISPOSED OF AT ARRAIGNMENT – Depending on Court

MISDEMEANORS: TYPES OF VIOLATIONS INCLUDE: VC 12500 DRIVING WITHOUT LICENSE B&P 25661(a) FAKE ID (inclds. 1 year license suspend. ) TYPICAL DISPOSITION: DISPOSED OF BY COURT AT ARRAIGNMENTVC 12500 - BY OBTAINING A LICENSE – DISMISSED POC FEE NO LICENSE –COURT WILL GENERALLY REDUCE TO INFRACTION W/GUILTY PLEA SENTENCE NOMINAL FINE

B&P 25661(a) FAKE ID TYPICAL DISPOSITION: B&P 25661(a) FAKE ID (inclds. 1 year license suspend. ) DISPOSED OF BY COURT AT ARRAIGNMENTPROOF OF COMPLETION OF 4 AA’S CASE DISMISSED NO FINE DIFFERENT COURT(S) – REQUIRE 12 AA’S AND 12 PARAGRAPHS WRITTEN ON WHAT THEY LEARNED, IF RECEIVED THE COURT WILL REDUCE TO INFRACTION ACCEPT PLEA OF GUILTY FINES DEEMS SATISIFIED. (PROBLEM IS, ANY PLEA TO THIS CHARGE RESULTS IN A 1 YEAR LICENSE SUSPENSION AND/OR PRIVILEGE TO GET A LICENSE SUSPENSION!)

MISDEMEANORS FILED BY PROSECUTOR: FILED BY FORMAL COMPLAINT: • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR INVOVLED • CITATION IS BASIS FOR THE CHARGE(S) – Formal pleading • COMPLAINT IS RARELY SUBJECT TO SUCESSFUL LEGAL CHALLENGES • OFTEN TIMES INFRACTIONS ARE INCLUDED • ENTITLED TO PRETRIAL • ENTITELD TO JURY TRIAL • ENTITLED TO PUBLIC DEFENDER • GENERALLY DISPOSED OF AT PRETRIAL

MISDEMEANORS FILED BY PROSECUTOR: TYPES OF VIOLATIONS INCLUDE: VC 12500 DRIVING WITHOUT LICENSE VC 23152(a) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUCENCE VC 23152(b) DRIVING WITH BAC >. 08% VC 14601. 1 DRIVING ON SUSPENDED LICENSE TYPICAL PROCEDURAL PROCESS: ARRAIGNMENT PRE TRIAL (negotiate, mitigate, dispose of) MOTIONS JURY TRIAL SENTENCING

MISDEMEANORS FILED BY PROSECUTOR: TYPICAL DISPOSITION: • ALL OVER THE BOARD • ORANGE COUNTY HAS A DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (DEJ) PROGRAM: • DEFENDANT ENTERS GULTY PLEA • CASE IS CONTINUED FOR 3 MONTHS • DEFENDANT GIVES HIS DNA (NON-REVOKABLE) • DEFENDANT ATTENDS A CLASS/#AA’S/ OR COMBINATION; MAYBE COMMUNITY SERVICE • RETURNS HAVING NO NEW CONVICTIONS GUILTY IS WITHDRAWN CASE IS DISMSSED • **ONE TIME OFFER!!

INFRACTIONS: • • • INFRACTIONS ARE DIRECTLY FILED: NO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR INVOVLED CITATION IS THE CHARGING DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO LEGAL CHALLENGES DEMURRERS – No Date; Out of Date Form LAW & MOTION – ISSUES NOT ENTITLED TO PRETRIAL/JURY TRIAL 95% ARE DISPOSED OF THROUGH THE MAIL/ONLINE OR AT ARRAIGNMENT/TRAFFIC SCHOOL/POC 5% GO TO TRIAL

INFRACTION TRIALS TYPES: • TRIAL BY WRITTEN DECLARATION (VC 40902) • COURT TRIAL • SUMMARY TRIAL- are based on the ticket only. • TRIAL IN ABSTENTIA (VC 40903)

INFRACTION TRIALS TRIAL BY WRITTEN DECLARATION: • BAIL MUST BE POSTED • DEFENDANT FILES A WRITTEN DECLARATION, once filed Officer is advised to file his Declaration • DEADLINE ASSIGNED • ON DUE DATE, DEFENDANT’S TBD AND OFFICER’S WRITTEN STATEMENT (IF ONE FILED) IS PROVIDED TO THE COURT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. • IF OFFICER FAILED TO FILE A STATEMENT, THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE NOT GUILTY, NOTICE PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT AND BAIL REFUNDED.

INFRACTION TRIALS TRIAL BY WRITTEN DECLARATION: • IF OFFICER FILED, MOST LIKELY, GUILTY RESULT • CONVICTION IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO DMV • IF GUILTY, BAIL APPLIED AS FINE, NOTICE PROVIDED VIA MAIL WHICH INCLUDES A NOTICE THAT DEFENDANT HAS 20 DAYS TO FILE A REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO • IF DEFENDANT TIMELY FILES FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO (TDN) A NEW TRIAL – COURT TRIAL IS GRANTED

INFRACTION TRIALS TRIAL DE NOVO: • TRIAL DE NOVO(TDN) NEW TRIAL, AS IF WRITTEN TRIAL NEVER HAPPENED COURT TRIAL MAY HIRE LEGAL COUNSEL IF DESIRED IF GUILTY, NO FURTHER FINE, CONVICTION STANDS IF NOT GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED (AFTER 8 TO 10 DAYS, IF YOU ARE LUCKY) BAIL IS REFUNDED • IF OFFICER NO SHOW, CASE DISMISSED, BAIL EXONERATED & CONVICTION REVERSED (MUST REMIND CLERK THAT THIS IS A DE NOVO, • • • OTHERWISE RECORD WILL JUST BE A DISMISSAL AND THE CONVICTION WILL REMAIN ON YOUR RECORD)

INFRACTION TRIALS TRIAL DE NOVO: • TDN PROBLEMS: • OFFICER’S GET PISSED OFF THAT DEFENDANTS ARE GRANTED NEW TRIAL • USUALLY INDIVIDUALS JUST WANT TRAFFIC SCHOOL THIS TAKES UP A LOT OF TIME JUST TO REQUEST TRAFFIC SCHOOL

INFRACTION TRIALS Court Trial: • • • Before Bench Officer – usually a Commissioner or Judge Pro Tem – Non–Stipulate Commissioner – CCP 170. 6 Challenge for prejudice Discovery available Writ of Mandate/Prohibition allowable for procedural issues Officer No Show, case dismissed Officer testifies by way of narrative Cross – Examination Motions to acquit if evidence is closed Argument Appellate Rights

INFRACTION TRIALS Court Trial: • Since 2015 NO DISPOSITIONS WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER – CHP ESPECIALLY • Sometimes we can negotiate regarding a CDL driver for a VC 21710 (coasting no point) or VC 38300** (failure to obey a sign – off road) • Officer willing to negotiate – Court unwilling to allow • Real problem with this type of prosecution is that the Court, is put in an untenable position of potentially being seen as a prosecutor and the judge. People v. Carlucci issues • **not reported to the DMV

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: • California State Bar Rules require an attorney be zealous for it’s client - Zealous is not the same thing as being an “a-hole” • Law Enforcement Officer’s are not Lawyers so they do not see things the same as we do • Never make a special appearance for an attorney that Law Enforcement does not like – it will hurt your reputation! • RELATIONSHIPS, RELATIONSHIPS • Officer’s talk!

INFRACTION TRIALS: • SUMMARY TRIAL- are based on the ticket only. The officer who issued the ticket does not appear. • Defendant can request or Notice of this proceeding is listed on the back of the ticket will proceed VC 40903 • TRIAL IN ABSTENTIA (VC 40903) Similar to a Summary Trial, except this is conducted when the Officer shows for a Court trial but the Defendant does not and no bail has been posted. It is a way for the court to close the file and impose a fine. • In theory, the defendant is entitled to a trial de novo after this proceeding, but that has yet to be tested if the Court’s will so allow

PROBLEMS: • • • OVER 4 MILLION TRAFFIC TICKETS FILED EACH YEAR IN CALIFORNIA OCCUPY 75% OF ALL CRIMINAL FILINGS OCCUPY GENERALLY 1 FULL TIME BENCH OFFICER PER COURTHOUSE TO ADJUDICATE LESS THAN 5% ACTUALLY GO TO TRIAL CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE WANTS TO TURN TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS INTO CIVIL ADJUDICATIONS SIMILAR TO PARKING TICKET ADJUDICATION BUT POINTS WILL STILL APPLY AGAINST DRIVING RECORD BASE FINES & PENALTY ASSESSMENTS ($35 = $238) REVENUE FROM THE TRAFFIC COURT IS FUNDING CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC SCHOOL IS NO LONGER DISCRETIONARY CAN ONLY ATTEND ONCE IN 18 MONTHS JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS BEING LOST BY LEGISLATIVE MANDATES SUCH AS MANDATORY FINES; CREATIVE DISPOSITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON TRAFFIC SCHOOL OPTIONS

Competition from NON-Lawyers

CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC DEFENSE BAR ASSOCIATION • Formalized in 2013 • Modeled after Texas Group • To provide Traffic Ticket Defense Attorneys with the education they need to be effective • Give Members access to attorney members throughout the state • To fight against bad legislation • Problems that have arisen are challenges because the state is so large; Northern California/Southern California mentality • Getting Members involved/to share courthouse/Judge related issues & information

CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC DEFENSE BAR ASSOCIATION • PRESENTLY FIGHTING ISSUES SURROUNDING: • Rouge Judicial Officers • State Legislative efforts to take away drivers rights and take traffic matters out of the criminal arena thus depriving individuals of Constitutional rights • Judicial Council Futures Commission Report was conducted in an effort to assess the status of the Courts, this report failed to take into consideration any defense perspective but is the basis for the charge of seeking to remove traffic matters from the criminal arena. In response to Steen v. LASC - -40508

THANK YOU! Linda A. Iannelli IANNELLI & ASSOCIATES, APC 5160 Birch Street, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)729 -3171 iannellilaw@earthlink. net President of the California Traffic Defense Bar Association