Loading…
Chapter 16, Minor Violations (Rules 16.1 and 16.2): remote arraignments in traffic infraction cases under California Rules of Court, rule 4.220 - authorization, notice, requesting or objecting, conduct and limitations (Rule 16.1); and delegated review of ability-to-pay petitions under Government Code §68645.3 for petitioners who attest to receiving public benefits (Rule 16.2).
California > Sixth Appellate District > San Benito County > Superior Court of California, County of San Benito
CHAPTER 16 – MINOR VIOLATIONS RULE 16.1 – REMOTE ARRAIGNMENTS a) Authority and Purpose: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.220, this rule establishes procedures for remote appearances in traffic infraction arraignments. The purpose of this rule is to expend access to the court, promote efficiency, and ensure due process in remote proceedings. b) Applicability: This rule applies to infraction cases, including traffic violations, where the defendant is entitled to an arraignment and the court permits or offers the option to appear remotely. c) Remote Appearance Authorization: The court may allow defendants to appear remotely using audio, video, or other electronic means approved by the court. Remote appearance may be conducted via 1) Court-approved video conferencing platforms; 2) telephone; 3) other technology as designated by the court. d) Notice of Remote Appearance Option: The court shall provide notice of the availability of remote appearances for traffic arraignments by 1) Posting information on the court’s public website; 2) Including instructions in traffic citations or courtesy notices; 3) Providing notice at the courthouse or clerk’s office. e) Requesting or Objecting to Remote Appearance: 1) A defendant may request to appear remotely by following the procedures posted on the court’s website, as defined at Local Rule 14.3 (e)(iii), or provided in the citation or notice 2) A defendant may object to a remote appearance and request an in-person hearing. The court shall grant the request unless good cause exists to proceed remotely. f) Conduct of Remote Proceedings: Remote traffic arraignments shall be conducted in accordance with Local Rule 14.3 (e)(vii) and in a manner that 1) Preserves the defendant’s right to be heard; 2) Allows for meaningful participation; 3) Ensures the proceeding is accessible and is recorded as required by law. g) Technical Requirements and Assistance: The court shall provide information about the technical requirements for remote appearances and may offer assistance or accommodations to ensure access for all participants h) Limitations: This rule does not apply to misdemeanor or felony proceedings, or to any infraction case where a judicial officer determines that an in-person appearance is necessary to ensure fairness or due process. (Eft. 1/1/2026) RULE 16.2 - DELEGATED REVIEW OF ABILITY TO PAY PETITIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §68645.3 a) Authority and Purpose: Pursuant to Government Code §68645.3, this rule authorizes the court to designate qualified court employees to conduct initial reviews of requests for ability-to-pay determinations in infraction cases, solely for petitions in which the individual attests to receiving public assistance. This delegation is intended to promote access to justice and administrative efficiency while preserving judicial oversight. b) Scope: This rule applies only to infraction cases where a defendant submits a request for a determination of their ability to pay and affirms under penalty of perjury that they are currently receiving public assistance, as defined in Government Code §68632. c) Notice and Right to Hearing: If the court denies an ability-to-pay request in whole or in part, the defendant shall be notified in writing and informed of their right to a hearing before a judicial officer. (Eft. 1/1/2026)
CHAPTER 16 – MINOR VIOLATIONS RULE 16.1 – REMOTE ARRAIGNMENTS a) Authority and Purpose: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.220, this rule establishes procedures for remote appearances in traffic infraction arraignments. The purpose of this rule is to expend access to the court, promote efficiency, and ensure due process in remote proceedings. b) Applicability: This rule applies to infra
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-10-07 (California T4 San Benito build 2026-10-07) from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-san-benito/docs/local-rules/2026-local-rules-superior-court-san-benito-county-redline.pdf (986264 bytes, sha256 9c4e7a2ba809147dfc1da20cd5cfa028e583a5b7f1d08927045c29d2bcf8dbc3; 98 pages; the rule body is pages 7 to 84, composed once and cut at the chapter headings) with the shared verbatim composer (v2 reflow). The running header (Superior Court of California, County of San Benito) and the page numbers removed as chrome; the cover, the table of contents, Appendix A (the list of rules with their dates of adoption or latest revision), Appendix B (the list of local forms) and the index belong to no card; the file's name says redline, but the strike report found no struck text and the book prints no coloured insertions; lines reflowed into the court's paragraphs, each rule heading and history note on its own line; proof 1 (whitespace-only) and proof 2 (same character multiset as the text layer minus chrome) pass. Review note: The book prints two chapters numbered 16 (Superior Court Writs and Petitions for Review, page 81, and this one, page 83), each numbering its rules from 16.1 (a review task on the other chapter). Published as printed: Rule 16.1(a) “to expend access to the court”; the history notes read “(Eft. 1/1/2026)”.
Division XI: information forms for data processing (Rule 11.2); required action - action taken on all calendared cases and a future date always set (Rule 11.19); and pro tem judges - an attorney named as a plaintiff in a civil or small claims case may not sit as a judge pro-tem during the case or within six months following its resolution, nor one named as a defendant in two or more such cases (Rule 11.22). Rules 11.1, 11.3 to 11.5, 11.7 to 11.18, 11.20 and 11.21 are repealed, and Rule 11.6 (voluntary arbitration; see Local Rule 10.2) was repealed and renumbered.
Duval County's indigent-defense and magistration rules under the Texas Fair Defense Act (S.B. 7): who may be booked into the county jail and on what paper; arrest-case numbering; presentment to a magistrate within 48 hours (art. 15.16); the magistrate's warnings, counsel inquiry, interpreter duty, indigence determination and appointment of counsel within 24 hours of a request; the alternative appointment plan under art. 26.04(g)-(h) with annual applications, seven attorney categories (capital, first and second degree, third degree/state jail/misdemeanor, competency, appeals, post-conviction, extradition), CLE and experience standards, random rotation within each category, written acceptance within 48 hours, first contact by the end of the next working day, replacement and suspension of counsel, fee applications within five days of completing services and the compensation attachment ($500 pleas; $175/$150 hourly; $1,400 per jury-trial day; appellate caps); bail schedules by offense class with a personal bond office (fee $20 or 3%), pre-trial supervision and revocation hearings within two working days; arraignment settings and notice; repeal of conflicting rules.