>> Some jurisdictions have "deferred adjudication"
> But that is not a warning. That is a real ticket. The Judge decides to
> allow it to be deferred.
> Kerby
Exactly correct. It's also sometimes called a "deferred acceptance of
guilty" plea, and in that scenario you're pleading what amounts to "no
contest".
That allows the jurisdiction to fine you and fill their coffers, and lets you
keep the violation off your driving record if you can stay out of further
trouble during the "probation" period. Pretty much a win-win. But
nevertheless, you're still copping a real plea to a real ticket.
And if you have a relatively clean (or "recently" clean anyway, like some of
us old farts) traffic record, it will NEVER hurt to grovel in front of the
judge and ask for deferred adjudication. The worst they can say is no. But
most times, they won't offer it unless you ask.
On the other hand this "get a warning and pay a fine" nonsense would never
withstand judicial scrutiny, especially at the appeals-court level. It
basically amounts to extortion. The cops can't legally run a game where they
say
"pay the fine for a warning, or we'll charge you with a crime." You HAVE to
be cited and charged -- and convicted (or waive your rights by paying the
default fine prior to arraignment) -- before you can legally be fined.
Cheers
Mark LaBarre
94 atx 135k
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
|