“Re-opening After Guilty Plea?”

Alright guys so here's the deal. Im just so pissed and myself because I think I made a "Fatal Error" myself So I was charged for "Driving Under Suspension" I attended the summons and a trial date was set.

I attend the trial and lo and behold the officer didnt show up. However this didnt stop the prosecuter from trying to strike a deal. He offers me:

"I will drop the "no validation on plate" charge and reduce your driving under suspension to "drive improper license", otherwise I will ask the JP for an adjournment. The officer called the court this morning and said she is stuck working a car accident investigation"

I thought to myself, if that is indeed true, and he gets his adjournment I will quite possibly face the officer next time and might get a drive under suspension charge, so I toke the DEAL ..Now that I think about it, I should have went all the way, got a fine of $350.

Dont think I will try to re-open, but if I wanted to, would it even be possible at this point? A paralegal friend of mine told me I could try and say "I didnt have counsel at that time and now I do" but I personally dont think that will work. Thoughts anyone?

Not sure how easy it would be to re-open. I'm guessing it would be difficult.

Do you actually have a defence to the drive suspend charge? You may not like the fine, but your plea is for a much less serious charge.

Drive suspend would carry a higher fine, possible further suspension and even jail time if you have prior convictions. Probably also have much more serious insurance rate implications.

Stanton wrote:Not sure how easy it would be to re-open. I'm guessing it would be difficult.

Do you actually have a defence to the drive suspend charge? You may not like the fine, but your plea is for a much less serious charge.

Drive suspend would carry a higher fine, possible further suspension and even jail time if you have prior convictions. Probably also have much more serious insurance rate implications.

Hey Stanton

Yes, very true, hence my hesitation. I will probably just accept it and move on. I was more upset with the fact I made a deal. Is there not a provision in the Act or something that states if the officer is not in attendence they must drop the charges? It's obvious that is not the case, but I remember hearing that someware for some reason.

What would any of you had done? Would you have taken the chance to allow the crown to ask for an adjurnment? Or would you have taken the deal?

Charges do not automatically get dropped just because the officer is not in attendance. In some busy jurisdictions JP's frequenly do dismiss minor HTA tickets if the Crown can't proceed, but it varies from one case to the next. The other option is you can seek an 11b motion if it's taken too long for your matter to get to trial, but that again depends on circumstances and varies from case to case.

And as for taking the deal versus risking a trial, I'm not really in a position to give advice.

Stanton wrote:Charges do not automatically get dropped just because the officer is not in attendance. In some busy jurisdictions JP's frequenly do dismiss minor HTA tickets if the Crown can't proceed, but it varies from one case to the next. The other option is you can seek an 11b motion if it's taken too long for your matter to get to trial, but that again depends on circumstances and varies from case to case.

And as for taking the deal versus risking a trial, I'm not really in a position to give advice.

Hey thanks, but it was more of a curiosity and for sake of discussion, I think we all know we cannot take legal advice from anyone on this forum, but we can compare stories and the "what if" scenarios. After all is that not what the forum is for?

Still very curious to hear what possible routes any of you might have taken if presented with that scenario? Still feel like I got owned by the crown there.