santa clara traffic ticket 2010 appeal - court opinion andorder
DESCRIPTION
Concerning Vehicle Code 40903 trials and civil assessments for FTATRANSCRIPT
THEA COP
AT2
3roJ
BY 4,
5
6
78
9
10
1112
1314
15
16
1718
1920
21
22
23
24
25
26
2728
INSIFILINENT ISF,Et7.7 COPY OF rlIE
THIS OFFICIE'1ST: °AVID H. YAMASAKi
MAR 14 1011I1EF EXECITINt OFilt.IF.PItCLE11 , .
I COAT (k, C A I ; t : ,' I . MY OF VNIA CLARA
DEPUTY
e Mach
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS
ANTHONY M. SHAFFER
LIC:$
0A‘,1:11"DAR i fR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,,,,4,,
1 A R A -2, Colrn -Cf!Itig E t,i w A S A K Ior .,Icectitivo Ottkr/c erkOUNTY OF SANTA CL
APPELLATE DIVISION
Defendant and Appellant.
1
ORDER
ORDER
Case No. 1-10-AP-0009*Y1
DEP
The appeal by appellant Anthony M. Shaffer ("Appellant") from the traffic conviction of
the Superior Court came on regularly for hearing and was heard and submitted on March 11,2011. We hereby hold as follows:
Appellant appeals his traffic conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 26708,
subdivision (a)(1). Appellant argues that the conviction should be reversed because the statutoryscheme for a failure to appear was ignored, trials in absentia are generally prohibited, the trialcourt violated the Confrontation Clause and exceeded judicial discretion, Vehicle Code section
40903 and Criminal Rule 12 are too vague to be operative, and better alternatives to trials inabsentia exist.
Because Appellant failed to address his citation and appear on the date indicated on the
citation, the Superior Court sent Appellant a Notice of Failure to Appear and Civil Assessment
on July 12, 2010. (See Record, p. 2.) The Notice of Failure to Appeal and Civil Assessmentindicated that a failure to comply with one of the options listed above would be deemed consent
to Trial by Written Declaration and a waiver of certain rights. (Ibid.) On September 8, 2010, a
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
10
11
1213
14
1516
17
18
1920
21
22
2324
2526
27
28
Decision and Notice of Decision was filed, indicating that Appellant's failure to appear was
deemed an election to proceed by trial by written declaration, and Appellant was found guilty of
violating Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(1). (See Record, p. 3.) It further indicate
that i f Appellant wished to request a new trial (trial de novo), Appellant must submit a requestfor a new trial and pay the fine amount within 20 days. (Ibid.) Appellant filed a Notice of
Appeal on September 24, 2010. (See Record, p. 5.)"Any person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to
have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer,
involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code (Veh.
Code, § 40903, subd. (a).) " I f the defendant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court" in a trial
by written declaration, "the defendant shall be granted a trial de novo." (Veh. Code, § 40902,subd. (d).) California Rules of Court, rule 4.210(b)(7) provides that i f a defendant's request fornew trial "is not timely received, no new trial may be held and the case must be closed."
"[I]he requirement for a trial de novo under section 40902 is similar to the statutory
requirement of a trial de novo applicable in cases arising from decisions by local agencies
pursuant to an ordinance." (People v. Kennedy (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1240, citing Gov.Code, § 53069.4, subd. (b)(1).) "One who contests an adverse decision from an administrative orother municipal agency relating to an ordinance must 'seek review by filing an appeal to be
heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of
the local agency's file in the case shall be received in evidence.' (Ibid.) "Considering the factthat section 40902 governs trials by written declaration 'upon any alleged infraction invo lvinga violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code' (italics added), the
intent of the legislation was to require a defendant who has suffered an adverse decision on aninfraction following a trial by written declaration to first file a request for a trial de novo as a
prerequisite to a direct appeal." (Ibid.) Thus, "a direct appeal to the appellate division of the
superior court is authorized only i f a defendant who has been convicted after a trial by writtendeclaration has timely sought a trial de novo." (Id. at p. 1241.)
2
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
11
12
13
1415
16
17
1819
2021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, the trial court properly treated Appellant's non-appearance as an election for a trial
by written declaration under Vehicle Code section 40903. Appellant was found guilty of
violating Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(1). Appellant could have requested a newtrial as indicated in the Notice of Decision. (See Record, p. 3.) However, the record fails to
indicate that Appellant timely requested a new trial. Instead, Appellant directly appealed theconviction to this court, which is not authorized. (See People v. Kennedy, supra, 168
Cal.App.4th at p. 1241.) Accordingly, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
Dated:
Dated:
Dated: - 2 -
3
ORDER
HiSfloMble',Jacqiieline DuongPcst ,s ia ing; fUdgelof the Appellate Division
,/
Honorable Edward Lee - - - - -Judge, Appellate Division
;Honorable Z e p e d aJudge, Appellate Division