1. D. Colette Wilson
Attorney at Law
1650 Linda Vista Dr., Suite 212
San Marcos, California 92078
Tel: (760) 744-5108
Fax: (760) 653-5108
May 10, 2012
Hon. Mark S. Arnold
Presiding Judge
Torrance Superior Court
825 Maple Avenue, Dept. G
Torrance, California 90503-5096
Re: Manuela Lila Cuajunco
Trial Court Case No. 92036LU
Judgment dated 05/09/11
Appellate Division Case No. BR049318
Remittitur issued 03/09/12
Dear Judge Arnold:
I have recently been retained by the defendant Manuela Lila Cuajunco with regard to her
conviction for Vehicle Code section 40508(a) (failure to appear). Ms. Cuajunco represented
herself before the trial court and in her appeal. The only notice she received of the Appellate
Division’s January 30, 2012, judgment affirming the trial court was when she received a copy of
the remittitur dated March 9, 2012. By that time, not only was it much too late to file a petition
for further review, but jurisdiction had already been transferred back to the trial court. That is
why I am writing to you, because you preside over the only court with the authority to make any
further ruling in this case. I am writing to call your attention to several egregious errors that
occurred in this case and to request that Ms. Cuajunco’s conviction be vacated or, at a minimum,
that she be given a new trial.
Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. On December 21, 2009, Ms. Cuajunco received a
traffic citation for violation of Vehicle Code section 4000(a)(1) (expired registration). She
explained that in fact her vehicle registration was current, as she had paid the registration fees.
However, her car needed repairs in order to pass the smog test, and she would receive her
registration tags as soon as the vehicle passed the smog test. Although he filled in March 16,
2010, as the “appearance” date on her citation, the officer specifically told Ms. Cuajunco not to
go to court on that date because she would be receiving a court notice with a later date. It should
also be observed that the citation itself states on the back that no appearance is necessary in the
case of a “correctable violation,” that the violation would automatically be dismissed upon proof
2. Hon. Mark S. Arnold
May 10, 2012
Page 2
of correction.
Ms. Cuajunco subsequently had the repairs done to her car, which passed smog on March 11,
2010. She presented proof of the correction to the DMV on March 25, 2010, and had the citation
stamped. Since she was expecting to receive a court notice with a later date, and since the officer
had told her to ignore the March 16 date, she followed his instructions and did not appear on that
day. She never had any intention of “failing to appear” because she innocently believed if any
appearance was required, she would receive further notice from the court.
Ms. Cuajunco was later charged with violating Vehicle Code section 40508(a) for not appearing
in court on March 16, 2010. However, no evidence was presented that she intended to violate the
order to appear. Even if Vehicle Code section 40508(a) is not classified as a specific-intent
crime, the fact is Ms. Cuajunco did everything she knew to do to satisfy the requirements of the
citation she was issued. It is simply inequitable for her to be fined $939 for dutifully following
the instructions of a police officer.
The conviction must also be reversed for serious procedural errors. Vehicle Code section
40508(a) is a misdemeanor, not an infraction. Furthermore, her conviction resulted in her being
punished with a heavy fine of $939 plus the suspension of her driver’s license, a significant harm
in itself. As such, Ms. Cuajunco was entitled to a jury trial. Yet she was never advised of her
right to a jury trial, nor did she waive that right. This fact is clear from the trial docket of May 9,
2011, which is a form used for infraction violations and does not even provide for recording a
defendant’s knowing waiver of a jury trial. Additionally, Ms. Cuajunco was then and still is
indigent. Yet she was never advised of her right to have a lawyer appointed to represent her,
either at trial or on appeal. Not having a lawyer to represent her at trial was highly prejudicial to
Ms. Cuajunco. Otherwise, her counsel would probably have subpoenaed the officer who wrote
the citation and elicited exonerating evidence. Ms. Cuajunco was also highly prejudiced by not
having a court-appointed lawyer to prepare and present her appeal.
Your honor correctly ruled previously in this matter that Ms. Cuajunco was not guilty of a
“failure to appear” at her original trial date of October 25, 2010, based on the evidence Ms.
Cuajunco presented in her letter to you of April 1, 2011. You justly granted her a new trial in
your order dated April 7, 2011. We respectfully request that you consider the serious violations
of Ms. Cuajunco’s rights that occurred at her trial on May 9, 2011. Equity demands that Ms.
Cuajunco’s conviction for violating section 40508(a) be set aside and the charges dismissed.
Failing that, we respectfully request that Ms. Cuajunco be given a new trial.
Sincerely,
D. COLETTE WILSON
Attorney
Enclosures
