§ 40513.  Filing of complaint

(a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere. "

If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed that shall conform to-Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 948) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whenever the written notice to appear has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment, request that a verified complaint be filed.

Enacted Stats 1959 ch 3. Amended Stats 1959 ch 606 § 6; Stats 1963 ch 325 § 1; Stats 1965 ch 1190 § 1; Stats 1968 ch 906 § 2; Stats 1996 ch 124 § 143 (AB 3470); Stats 1997 ch 17 § 145 (SB 947).

Amendments:

1963 Amendment: (1) Deleted "of illegal parking" after "whenever notice" in the first paragraph- and (2) substituted "with" for "at" before "Section 948" in the second paragraph.

1965 Amendment: (1) Designated the former section to be subd (a); (2) added "or 'nolo contendere' " wherever it appears; and (3) added subd (b).

1968 Amendment: Substituted "enter a plea and, if the notice to appear is verified, upon which a warrant may be issued. If the notice to appear is not verified, the defendant may, at the time of arraignment request" for "plead 'not guilty,' unless the defendant at the time he enters his plea requests" in subd (b).

1996 Amendment: (1) Deleted "or whenever notice has been given pursuant to the provisions of Section 41102," before "an exact" in subd (a); and (2) substituted "subdivision (a)" for "the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section" in subd (b).

1997 Amendment: Made technical changes.

Former Veh C § 739.1, as added Stats 1941 ch 190 § 1, amended Stats 1945 ch 1252 § 3.

Collateral References:

Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) Ch III Defenses § 275.
Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Criminal Law §§ 1675, 1682.

Attorney General's Opinions:

Vehicle Code violator who finds court not open for business when he appears at proper time and place indicated in notice. 14 Ops Atty Gen Cal 215.

1. In General
2. Formal Complaint
3. Arraignment

1. In General

A defendant charged with a traffic violation who maintains his innocence, who does not plead guilty when arraigned on a traffic ticket, against whom a formal complaint is filed, and who has a trial, is not entitled to attack the constitutionality of this statute.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410.

With parking violations, where no promise to appear has been obtained (Veh Code, § 40500 et seq), the offender is first given a notice attached to the vehicle (Veh Code, § 41103, subd (1)). If no bail is deposited within the time fixed in the notice, a complaint is filed (Veh Code, § 40513), but before an arrest warrant can issue a further notice of the violation must be given to him (Veh Code, § 41103, subd (2)).
People v Weitzer (1969, 1 st Dist) 269 Cal App 2d 274, 75 Cal Rptr 318.

2. Formal Complaint

Where defendant charged in a police court with violation of § 505(b) pleaded not guilty and did not waive the filing of a complaint, such filing was mandatory.
Ralph v Police Court of El Cerrito (1948) 84 Cal App.2d 257, 190 P2d 632.

Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Los Angeles to try a defendant for a traffic: violation and enter judgment depends upon the existence of a formal complaint.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 4 10.

On a plea other than guilty to traffic violations and in the absence of a waiver, a complaint must be filed before the court has jurisdiction.
Rupley v Johnson (1953) 120 Cal App 2d 548, 261 P2d 318.

Defendant cited for and charged with violating secstion of Vehicle Code who pleads not guilty and does not waive filing of misdemeanor complaint, is not brought within jurisdiction of municipal, or other inferior, court, until verified complaint charging him with offense in question has been filed.
Gavin v Municipal Court of San Diego Judicial Dist. (1960, 4th Dist) 184 Cal App 2d 712, 7 Cal Rptr 732.

The trial court did not err in denying a petition for a writ of mandate that would have required the municipal court to accept for filing and processing, duplicate notices of parking violations left by campus police on unattended and illegally parked vehicles at a state university campus. Such a notice is not the equivalent of the "notice to appear" referred to in Veh. Code, § 40513, to which a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be entered. It is only when a complaint with supporting affidavit is filed that the municipal court can be required to assume jurisdiction. Up until that time the payment and receipt of money for a parking ticket is an administrative function which does not require the use of the judicial branch of government.
Board of Trustees v Municipal Court for San Luis Obispo Judicial Dist. (1979, 5th Dist) 95 Cal App 3d 322, 157 Cal Rptr 133.

The trial court properly denied a city's petition for a writ of mandate to compel a municipal court to process parking violation notices. The jurisdiction of the municipal court is limited to cases and proceedings in which it is expressly conferred, and while Pen C § 1462, provides that municipal and justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving violation of ordinances of cities or towns within  the court district, the filing of a complaint is essential to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly, until a complaint is filed the municipal court does not have a duty enjoined by law to exercise its jurisdiction in matters involving parking violations established by local ordinance. No statutory authority provides that the filing of the notice of a parking violation is
the equivalent of the filing of a complaint.
San Diego v Municipal Court for San Diego Judicial Dist. (1980, 4th Dist) 102 Cal App 3d 775, 162 Cal Rptr 420.

In a prosecution for failing to wear a safety helmet while operating a motorcycle (Veh. Code, § 27803,subd. (b)), a notice to appear, to which a not guilty plea was entered, properly served as a complaint to initiate the prosecution and confer jurisdiction on the trial court to proceed to trial. The arresting officer is sued a verified notice to appear, on a form approved by the Judicial Council, directing defendant to appear in court. The provisions of Veh. Code, § 40513, subd.(b) (notwithstanding other requirements for filing verified complaint, written notice to appear on form approved by Judicial Council may constitute complaint), indicate that it is an exception to Veh.  Code. § 40513, subd. (a) (verified complaint must be filed if defendant pleads other than guilty or nolo contendere). Veh. Code, § 40513, subd. (b), has no limiting language with respect to a particular type of plea that can be entered to a written notice to appear that has been prepared on a form approved by the Judicial Council. The intent was that it apply to any plea. Thus, where the written notice to appear has be so prepared, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice, when filed with the magistrate, constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or not guilty. Such a notice to appear may be filed in lieu of a formal verified complaint even where the defendant enters a not guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial.
People v Barron (1995, App Dep't Super Ct) 37 Cal App 4th Supp 1, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 348.

3. Arraignment

In the absence of a waiver. this statute, in reciting that a complaint shall be filed against a defendant  who pleads other than guilty to a traffic violation charge and that "thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law," requires an arraignment on such complaint.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d  410.

The mere absence of a formal arraignment on a traffic violation charge is not a denial of due process.
People v Agnew (1952, App Dep't Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d 410.

Notwithstanding error in failing to arraign a defendant charged with a traffic violation before putting him to trial, reversal is not required. where the cause was tried by both sides on the theory that a plea of not guilty had been entered, defendant received the benefit of such plea as fully as if it had been made, and evidence supports the conviction.
People v. Agnew (1952, App Dep’t Super Ct) 110 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 242 P2d  410.

Is the NOTICE TO APPEAR  "sufficient" as a "complaint"?

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 948-973

948.  All the forms of pleading in criminal actions, and the rules by which the sufficiency of pleadings is to be determined, are those prescribed by this Code.
 

959.  The accusatory pleading is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom:
   1. That it is filed in a court having authority to receive it, though the name of the court be not stated.
   2. If an indictment, that it was found by a grand jury of the county in which the court was held, or if an information, that it was subscribed and presented to the court by the district attorney of the county in which the court was held.
   3. If a complaint, that it is made and subscribed by some natural person and sworn to before some officer entitled to administer oaths.

The NOTICE TO APPEAR  which the citing officer signs at curbside is INSUFFICIENT pursuant to Penal Code §959.3

Certiorari is an appropriate relief to seek in a situation such as here presented. (Brady v. Superior Court (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 69  , 72 [19 Cal.Rptr. 242]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Enforcement of Judgment, § 175, p. 3535.) [1] "Certiorari, like prohibition, is, of course, a 'jurisdictional' writ. While it cannot be used to attack an error of a lower tribunal committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it is available when that tribunal has acted in excess of its 'jurisdiction.' ... The meaning of 'jurisdiction' for the purposes of certiorari ... is different and broader than the meaning of the same term when used in connection with 'jurisdiction' over the person and subject matter." (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 , 454-455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) Our Supreme Court further has stated (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 , 290 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715]): "'... it seems well settled (and there appears to be no case holding to the contrary) that when a statute authorizes prescribed procedure, and the court acts contrary  to the authority thus conferred, it has exceeded its jurisdiction, and certiorari will lie to correct such excess.'" (Also see: Rodman v. Superior Court (1939) 13 Cal.2d 262 , 269-271 [89 P.2d 109]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1068, 1222.)
Mitchell v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.3d 759, 104 Cal Rptr 921.