On 27 Feb. 2014, Mark Taylor > wrote:

> I was found guilty of cellphone gps use in CA and now
> they overturned the law according to a ruling released
> today.
> http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...-while-driving
> California court OKs using cellphone map while driving
>
> Since I used a similar argument, that I was just using the
> GPS, is there a way I can get my money back?

There isn't a way that anyone can reliably say "Yes" based only on
what you say above.

(There also isn't a way that one can reliably say "No" based only on
what you say above so that, at least for the time being, you should
disregard how the poster named "richard" responded to you.)

Assuming that you were cited for violating the same Vehicle Code
provision as the defendant in the case to which you refer, you are
mistaken that the court overturned that law. Instead, it overturned
an _interpretation_ of that law by an earlier panel of judges of that
same court in a prosecution in which the underlying facts were not in
dispute.

This distinction is important because not only are you not
sufficiently clear that you were cited and convicted for violating
that same statutory provision but, even if you were, you say that you
_argued_ that you were using your cell phone just as a GPS but don't
clearly say that you were _cited_ (explicitly) for using it as a GPS.
That is, contrast these to cases:
Case#1: Defendant is cited for driving while using a
wireless telephone not specifically designed and configured for hands
free use, he testifies and argues at trial that he wasn't using it to
engage in conversation when he was cited and instead only as a GPS,
the complaining officer testifies that the defendant was using it as a
telephone for conversation, and the defendant is convicted;
Case#2: Defendant is cited for driving while using a
wireless telephone not specifically designed and configured for hands
free use in that, the citation says, he was using it to look at a map
or otherwise as a GPS (i.e., no mention of using it to converse),
there is no dispute at trial about this because, like the defendant,
the complaining officer testifies that the defendant was using it only
to look at a map or otherwise as a GPS, but the defendant is convicted
anyway.

In other words, whereas maybe the court in your case in convicting you
ruled that you violated the statute by using your cell phone to look
at a map or otherwise as a GPS pursuant to a citation that
specifically alleged that, like Case#2, you don't make that clear in
your posting so maybe your prosecution is closer to what occurred in
Case#1.

You also don't post any of the dates (the time-line) pertinent to you
so that one also can't tell from what you say whether the period
specified by law within which you may appeal has expired. And
although there sometimes can be ways to appeal (or obtain relief by
other means) even after the time within which to appeal has expired,
you don't post sufficient details to enable assessing whether, if that
period as expired for you, you nevertheless probably can obtain relief
from a court (continuing to depend on how close your prosecution was
to hypothesized Case#2 instead of being closer to Case#1). Nor do you
provide adequate information in your posting needed to assess whether
there may be administrative avenue of relief even if it is too late to
seek judicial relief.

Again, this does _not_ mean that your case necessarily is complex or
that there is no way for you to get a refund (and vacate the
conviction). But consider this:

In the very case to which you refer, an appellate panel ruled that
there was no dispute about the fact that the defendant was using his
wireless phone to look at a map (i.e., not to converse with another)
but that the plain meaning of the statute in light of its recorded
legislative history required upholding the conviction whereas that
same court in a later appeal ruled that the plain meaning of the
statute in light of its recorded legislative history required
overturning the conviction.

Thus sometimes judges all agree that the answer to a question is
obvious but it is just that some of them agree that, obviously, "Yes"
is the answer and the rest of them agree that, obviously, "No" is the
answer.

While, obviously, it is most preferable for you to consult face with a
lawyer who knows about and is experienced in dealing with these sorts
of cases if you are serious about wanting to overturn your conviction
and obtain a refund, you need at the very least to clarify your
question by posting sufficient facts that specifically address all the
issues summarized above if you want intelligently to pursue your
question in this or in some other comparable Internet news group.