6 months ago I received a speeding ticket. A lawyer I consulted warned me about the judge I was going to see in East SD Co., telling me he was very biased and was tough, even with a good case.
I did much better than I expected in court. I cracked the cop, who couldn't answer many vital questions, such as whether or not he administered an alcohol test, and the speed of the area I was seen speeding in. I pointed out that he wrote I was speeding 55 in a 35 mph zone, however much of the area he cited me for speeding in was a 40 mph zone. He even falsely stated that it was "part 45mph part 30mph zone". Its 40! The judge even repeated it was a 45 zone siding with this incompetent cop.
With his case looking weak, the judge still found me guilty. I couldn't believe it. And worse, I didnt even get the offer of traffic school.
I felt slighted,and feel I received an unfair trial considering the cops spotty report. I am going to appeal. What can I expect? Will I see a different judge? Can I still ask for traffic school or will that part of the judges decision stand?
The cop straight out said he didn't know what the speed limit was and repeated a wrong fact about the areas speed limit.
Ive made many mistakes getting tickets in my past, but I am innocent on this, and I wish I could get a fair trial without worrying about my past.
Do I have a good chance of a re trial? Do I have a chance of having a fair trial? Please, any information will be great..thank you. An appeal will be heard in the Appellate Division of the superior court, a 3-judge reviewing court, but I don't think you have any chance whatsoever on the appeal from the conviction. California's law on speed is a "reasonable and prudent" standard. You apparently admit going faster than than the posted limit (whatever it was). It is then presumed that your speed was not reasonable and prudent, and to win YOU must present evidence that your speed was reasonable and prudent despite the posted limit.
It does not matter whether the hearing officer disbelieved everything the officer said -- if there was evidence you were exceeding the limit and no evidence that such a speed was reasonable, the hearing officer would HAVE to convict you.
Further, even if your testimony was that you were not exceeding what you assert the limit is, the appeal is not a new trial, and so long as there is ANY evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's ruling, you will lose. So if the police officer testified you were going at a certain speed, and the hearing officer believed him, the Appellate Division MUST accept that as fact.
There will not be a retrial. Either the evidence is sufficient (as it appears) and the conviction will be affirmed, or else the evidence is not sufficient, and the conviction will be reversed.
You say you were not given an "offer" of traffic school. It does not have to be offerred, you have to ask for it. However, if you asked for it, and the hearing officer arbitrarily denied it (for example, if he said that nobody who goes to trial can get traffic school), that might be an issue you could win -- but that would result only in the case being sent back to the hearing officer for proper consideration of your request. Yes, you can appeal, and you will see a different judge (or a panel of judges, depending on the circumstances).
If you represent yourself, DO NOT try to criticize the first judge or the policeman. This will get you nowhere, because judges stick up for each other. Also do not question the facts of the case as determined by the first judge, since appellate courts don't hear appeals of facts. Just focus on the interpretation of the law and how it applies to your case. I don't practice in California, but here's some general law points to help you...
Appeals are taken to a 'higher' court, so it would be sent to the next level in the court system for review. But appeals are also very complicated. You have to file a timely notice of appeal and certify the record on appeal. It sounds like you represented yourself, and that can cause a few problems. If you didn't make any objections, or move for a directed verdict, the appellate court may find that no appealable issues were preserved and refuse to review the case. If you can get a higher court to review, just know they will not hear new evidence, they will review the transcript of the original trial... and they will give a lot of deference to the ruling of the lower court. Now, if as you say the testimony was insufficient to show the elements were meant, you could get a reversal, which could mean a dismissal or a new trial... don't count on the officer not knowing the speed limit at a new trial... he'll be p*ssed and will have his ducks in a row! |
