Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court to resend notice after mailing error; defendant received another person's hearing materials
Summary
A defendant, Nicholas Davis, told the Lake Forest Park court on Jan. 21 that he had received a hearing notice intended for another person (Albert England). The court told Davis to call back and the clerk said it would resend England’s notice and reschedule where needed.
Get email alerts on the Court Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court staff discovered a clerical mailing error during the Jan. 21 mitigation calendar at Lake Forest Park Municipal Court: a defendant, Nicholas Davis, said he had two hearing notices in hand—one for himself and one for another person, Albert Joseph England III.
What happened
Davis told the clerk that one notice listed case number 480713644 (mitigation on Jan. 21) and another listed a different case number with a different address. The clerk confirmed that two notices had been mailed to Davis’s address in error. The clerk asked Davis to call the court the next day so the office could record the error and resend the correct notice to Mr. England. The judge directed the clerk to resend notice materials to the correct parties.
Why it matters
Clerical errors in mailed notices can cause defendants to miss hearings or be unaware of scheduled appearances. Court staff noted at least one returned mailing and advised affected defendants to contact the courthouse to resolve address and service problems.
Next steps
The clerk said staff would resend the correct hearing notice for the affected party and would set any needed new dates (the judge proposed Feb. 18 for a contested hearing in one instance). Defendants with returned mail were instructed to appear at the courthouse window to resolve address issues and to request hearings as needed.
Ending
The court confirmed no further action was needed on the record beyond resending notice and advised defendants to follow up by phone or in person if they had additional mailing or address problems.

