#25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran

[Nathaniel Luceran]

Defendant Name: Nathaniel Luceran
Defendant Phone: 24
(( Defendant Discord: dong__copter ))
(( Defendant Timezone: PST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Private Defense Attorney

Charging Department: Los Santos Sheriffs Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 10-01-2025
Charge(s):

• NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
  NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
  GF21 - Prison Break
  GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
  GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
  GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
  GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
  SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
  SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
  GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
  NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines

Narrative:
I was falsely accused and charged with the charges above.

---

I, Nathaniel Luceran, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

Image

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 16th day of January, 2025.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Sayaka Yukimura]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 26th day of April, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 26th of May, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Preparing evidence for multi-defendant case
  • Detailed Explanation: This case is one (1) of five (5) cases regarding the same incident. Despite the time lapsed since the filing of these cases, the Prosecution is still undergoing efforts with the Sheriff's Department in having the evidence made available to the Prosecution for review, efforts which were discovered to be more complicated than expected due to the sensitivity of the material, maintaining a proper chain of custody, and other technical difficulties. On these grounds, the Prosecution is requesting a continuance of fourteen (14) days on the Order for Discovery.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution,
  
  The court has given you the time requested as there has been a lapse in response from the Judiciary. That being said, the court will be allowing an additional 7 days for the prosecution to compile the evidence. If evidence has not been provided, the court may move to dismiss the case due to a failure of the prosecution to present evidence within a reasonable amount of time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution,
  
  If you cannot provide a valid reasoning as to why there is such a delay providing the evidence, the courts will be forced to dismiss the case in favor of the defendant. You have 48 hours to provide a response. If you need to provide the response via email, please do so.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Luna McMillan]

---

Notification Of Counsel

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

I, Luna McMillan, a Private Defense Attorney with the Vanguard Law Firm, will be representing the Defendant, Nathaniel Luceran in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Attorney
Vanguard Law
(909) 463-9315 — [email protected]

[Luna McMillan]

---

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
24/JUN/2025

---

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran

25-BT-0040

---

The Defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, by and through Vanguard Law, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Prosecution has failed to give Discovery
  • Detailed Explanation: As Judge Kant stated above

    Prosecution,
    
    If you cannot provide a valid reasoning as to why there is such a delay providing the evidence, the courts will be forced to dismiss the case in favour of the defendant. You have 48 hours to provide a response. If you need to provide the response via email, please do so.

    That was on Sunday Jun 22, 2025 at 8:57 pm. Which now i am reply to this on Tuesday the 24th of Jun, 2025 at 21:19pm which by default means the prosecution has gone over the allotted time by 1 hour meaning my client should be awarded their charges to be struck from them and be reimbursed the full amount. So we ask that your honour take this into account and dismiss this trial accordingly.

Attorney
Vanguard Law
(909) 463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has, regrettably, no update regarding potential evidence at this time. Despite multiple attempts of contact with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department over the course of the last six (6) months, the Prosecution has still not managed to establish access to the relevant evidence. As such, we have nothing to present at this time.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Luna McMillan]

---

Docket Notice

---

Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,

This is not my clients fault and as you said yourself Judge Kant they had a number of days to keep pressuring SD to hand over any evidence they have. My client has waited a long time for this trial and I have been waiting to get this work done and there is still no evidence with this in mind we still believe this should be dismissed as the prosecution did not even notify us here on the docket that they still have no evidence showing they do not wish to care about our time for this case.

Very Respectfully,


Attorney
Vanguard Law
(909) 463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 6th day of July, 2025.

After a discussion internally within the Judiciary, and then between the San Andreas Judicial Branch and the Los Santos Sheriffs Department, it was determined that delays and miscommunications occurred over multiple months on both sides of the fence. Despite the length of time that has occurred, the courts cannot deny the seriousness of the crimes, and the weight of a dismissal prior to established proper communication. We maintain that the rights of defendants to a speedy trial remain at the forefront of the mind of the Judiciary. However, a reasonable explanation has been provided by law enforcement and prosecution.

As the prosecution is now in possession of the necessary information to create a relevant Motion for Discovery, the courts will be allowing an additional 7 days, nothing more, for the prosecution to provide their evidence.

Respectfully,


Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 6th of July, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Change of Venue, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;

• Requested Venue: Formal trial
  • Detailed Explanation: This case warrants a formal trial due to its complexity. The defendant was arrested based on an investigation spanning several months, which also saw the arrest of multiple other co-conspirators and defendants. The Prosecution, during its case-in-chief, will present a large number of exhibits that are crucial in establishing the facts and ensuring a comprehensive presentation of evidence. The connection between this case and those of four (4) other defendants through a conspiracy necessitates that the judicial process be strict and structured to ensure a thorough and transparent pursuit of justice and fair consideration for all parties involved. The investigation behind the defendant's and their co-conspirators' arrests spanned several months and is underscored by the seriousness of the charges filed against the defendant, which include the state's most grave felonies, and demands a meticulous review of the extensive evidence. Proceeding with a formal trial will not only uphold the integrity of the judicial system through detailed trial proceedings, but it will also guarantee due process. Lastly, it will maintain public confidence in the justice system's ability to handle complex and high-stakes cases responsibly and impartially, which is especially important following the recent changes to the court system.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The court formally recognises the motion from the prosecution for a change of venue. Defense, please provide a response within the next seven (7) days either with your arguments against this motion or your acceptance of the motion.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Court Clerk
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]
  
  On behalf of
  
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to amend its previous motion to also consider the Prosecution's intent of setting precedent with regards to one- and two-party consent.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR JOINDER

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A Motion for Joinder was filed in the above case on the 8th of July, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Joinder, requesting this and the following list of cases be joined together for collective prosecution.

• • Case information
    #25-BT-0039, State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci
    case number and name
    
    David Deltoid
    defendant
    
    David Deltoid (self-representation)
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    State of San Andreas v. Carl Valentine
    case number and name
    
    Carl Valentine
    defendant
    
    Jay Wellberg, Assured Law
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    #25-BT-0048, State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
    case number and name
    
    Cortez Rivera
    defendant
    
    Public Defender
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    #25-BT-0051, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
    case number and name
    
    Alistair Vespucci
    defendant
    
    Quentin Delaventura, Assured Law
    defense attorney

• Detailed Explanation: The four (4) listed cases are all the result of the same investigation into the August 18th prison break of Sophia Falcone, as is the defendant's. All five (5) defendants are alleged to have been part of the planning and execution of the prison break, all of them receiving many, and in some cases all, of the same charges as the other defendants. Consolidating these cases will minimize the duplication of efforts by prosecutors, witnesses, and resources, and thereby reduce judicial resources on trying five (5) near-identical cases, while also promoting judicial efficiency, consistency, and fairness. Due to the nature of the crimes, being interconnected and committed in concert, makes it logical to address their actions collectively. Trying the cases separately could potentially lead to inconsistent verdicts, thereby undermining the principles of fairness, for example, by allowing one defendant's testimony or evidence to influence the outcome of another. Joining the trials could prevent the defendants from presenting conflicting defenses that could be unfairly advantaged. Moreover, the defendants' coordinated actions and shared responsibilities in committing the alleged crimes make trying the cases separately redundant and potentially prejudicial to the other cases. Trying the cases together promotes the interests of justice with an equitable resolution for all parties involved.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To all parties concerned,
  
  This notice is to show intent by the Prosecution to provide discovery once the previous motions have been ruled upon. The outcome of both motions will unquestionably and definitively alter the nature of and course of the trials to come. If requested by the Judiciary, the Prosecution can forward a preliminary discovery for review.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Prosecution, the court has recognized and acknowledged the motions presented. We understand the need for a response from defense prior to posting the motion for discovery. In the meantime, the Judiciary is requesting an informal motion for discovery be sent via email to myself. This is to solidify that procedures are being maintain and to ensure that, if the defense requests it, the case would be ready for bench trial as soon as possible.
  
  Defense, you now have 14 days, due to the current LOA of the Chief Public Defender, to provide your response to the states motion or the court will be force to make a ruling based on the given information.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Nathaniel Luceran]

To whom it may concern,

My defense attorney has gone none responsive, despite speaking to her in person regarding the previous activity in this docket.

Due to this I would like to request fourteen (14) days to acquire a new defense attorney, either private or public.

I would like to also notate the fact the discovery period has ended several times now, with multiple extensions being granted, but to no avail, no evidence has been provided.


This being said, I would also like to reject the prosecutions motion for joinder, as cases should be handled on a case by case basis, not as a selective group.

Regards,
N.Luceran

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The court recognizes the request of the defendant. We agree to allow an additional 14 days from the date of the request to find an attorney. Please reach out if you have found one in a shorter amount of time, so that we may proceed.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• All concerned parties,
  
  Let this notice reflect that I, Superior Court Judge Hugh R. Allgood, will be assuming the role of Presiding Judge on this case. In the interest of judicial efficiency, I will also be presiding over the other 3 associated cases; State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci, and State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera.
  
  This Court will also honor the continuance granted by previous judiciary for 14 days from 30/Jul/2025 for the Defendant to find counsel (deadline 13/Aug/2025). The Court also acknowledges the Defendant's request to deny the motion for joinder, however, the Court will wait to rule on this motion to afford time for any new Counsel to provide any further response on behalf of the Defendant. If the Defendant has found Counsel, the Court asks the Defendant to notify the Court accordingly. Otherwise, the Court will rule on the motion in the days following 13/Aug/2025.
  
  The Court also notes no response has been provided by the Defendant or Defendant's counsel on the motion to change this venue from a bench trial to a formal trial. The Court would like a response from either Defendant or Defendant's counsel on this motion before a decision is rendered.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Nathaniel Luceran]

Due to failure to secure a private defender, I would like to request a public defender for this case

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-BT-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of August, 2025.

In line with other decisions made in the associated cases, the motion for joinder has been denied. Additionally, the Court will hear this case as a formal trial in line with other decisions, as well as the State's intent on seeking precedence. This case is hereby being reassigned to case # 25-CM-0039.

The Defendant needs counsel before this case can resume. Pending appointment of a public defender, per the Defendant's request.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A court order was entered in the above case on 21st of August, 2025

The case of #25-CM-0039, State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[QuentinDeLaVentura]

- - - - -

---

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

#25-CM-0039 | State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran

A Motion to Substitute Counsel was filed in the above case on the 26th of August, 2025.

• COMES NOW, the Defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an order substituting current defense counsel with new counsel, Quentin Delaventura, Esq., in the above-captioned case, with Attorney Jay Wellberg as co-counsel.
  
  In support of this Motion, Defendant states as follows:
  
  1. The Defendant’s Right to Effective Counsel
  The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. Due to the issues with regards to defendant's counsel as previously mentioned on this Docket, the Defendant believes he has been deprived of meaningful legal representation, potentially affecting the fairness of these proceedings.
  
  2. New Counsel's Availability and Readiness to Proceed
  The undersigned attorneys, Quentin Delaventura, Esq., of Assured Law, and Attorney Jay Wellberg of Assured Law, have entered into a formal agreement with Mr. Luceran, for representation in this case. New counsel stands ready to immediately take over all defense responsibilities and ensure that the Defendant receives diligent, competent, and zealous representation. This substitution will not cause any undue delays or prejudice to the proceedings but will instead allow for the case to progress efficiently and justly.
  
  WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
  A. Grant this Motion to Substitute Counsel, permitting Quentin Delaventura, Esq. to enter as defense counsel of record;
  B. Relieve prior and potential counsel of further responsibility in this matter, including the pending appointment of a public defender from the State of San Andreas' Judicial Branch; and
  C. Grant any such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

---

• Respectfully signed,
  
  Quentin Delaventura Esq.
  "Your Voice, My Win"
  (702) 395-6394
  [email protected]
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A decision was reached in the above case on the 27th day of August, 2025.

The Defendant, through counsel, requests this Court to discharge previous counsel and appoint Quentin Delaventura and Jay Wellberg of Assured Law as counsel. This will be granted.

Defense counsel argues the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel. This argument would ordinarily have no support, as the State of San Andreas is a soverign state from the United States. However, San Andreas does also have this same guarantee in the Constitution, so this argument does prevail.

As noted in previous decision of this Court, the Defendant is/was in need of defense counsel. As the Defendant has retained Assured Law, this Court will accept such appointment.

Quentin Delaventura and Jay Wellberg are so appointed, and any previous counsel is hereby relieved.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]