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

2. 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

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

4. 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

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

6. B&P 25661(a) FAKE ID TYPICAL DISPOSITION:
B&P 25661(a) FAKE ID (inclds.1 year license suspend.)
DISPOSED OF BY COURT AT ARRAIGNMENT-
PROOF 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!)

7. 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

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

9. 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RETURNS HAVING NO NEW CONVICTIONS GUILTY IS WITHDRAWN CASE IS DISMSSED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!!

10. 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

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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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

16. INFRACTION TRIALS Court Trial:
Before Bench Officer – usually a Commissioner or Judge Pro Tem
Judge Pro Tem – Non–Stipulate
Commissioner – CCP 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

17. 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 (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

18. 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, RELATIONSHIPS
Officer’s talk!

19. 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 VC40903
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

20. 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

21. Competition from NON-Lawyers

22. 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

23. 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

24. THANK YOU! Linda A. Iannelli IANNELLI & ASSOCIATES, APC
5160 Birch Street, Suite 210
Newport Beach, CA
(949)
President of the California Traffic Defense Bar Association