#25-BT-0131 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• We respectfully request a continuance of this case, as the defendant is presently being unlawfully held in a foreign country due to charges initiated by this government arising from a botched investigation. This will all come to light soon.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will grant a fourteen (14) day continuance for the Defense. Please notify the Court of the status as soon as you have that information.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Mic Ross]

- - - - -

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 22nd of January, 2026.
  I, Mic Ross, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant, Lewis Langley, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Co-Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge.
  
  (( Just realised this was posted on the wrong account my apologies ))

---

• 
  Mic Ross. - Junior Attorney
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 224-2401
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

DOCKET NOTICE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
25-BT-#0131

A Docket Notice was filed in the above case on the 30th day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, states as follows;

• The Prosecution would like to direct the Court's attention to a separate case against this Defendant, #26-BT-0008 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley, for the purposes of deadline-setting. In that case, Defense Counsel filed a motion on 21/Jan/2026 asking the Court to order the State to provide "proof of life" for the Defendant, which the Court did order of the State to do so, and the State has been attempting to comply with the order of the Court.
  
  I have been in communication with SAGOV to obtain this information, and as of writing have been told such proof of life does exist, however, I have yet to see it to be able to provide anything of substance to the Court ((There was supposedly some RP to be played out, which has since happened, but the content of the RP has not been provided)). However, yesterday (29/Jan/2026) the Defense has informed the Court they had obtained the proof of life, via video message. It should be noted the Prosecution has still not seen any such evidence. Prior to this 'revelation' by the Defense on 29/Jan/2026, the Prosecution had been informed the Defense has known Mr. Langley to be fine all along, as a member of the Defense law firm told a SAGOV staff member they knew the Defendant to be alive and had been in contact with him through text message via an unauthorized cell phone.
  
  If true, the Prosecution believes this Court should (1) amend its 21/Jan ruling wherein the Defense was granted a 14 day continuance and resume these proceedings, and (2) admonish the Defense for misleading this Court. The Prosecution believes once a trial is ready to commence, SAGOV can arrange for transport of Mr. Langley back to San Andreas to stand trial, but believes the current defense tactic is merely stalling.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense notes that much of the Prosecution’s filing is irrelevant to the basis of the Defense’s continuance. We love writing tons of words and then deciding what’s relevant later down the line - but let’s save some time here.
  
  The Defense sought a continuance for a single reason: the Defendant could not attend his own trial. Had the Prosecution only stated that "SAGOV can arrange for transport of Mr. Langley back to San Andreas to stand trial" instead of around 300 words of.. something, the Defense would have agreed and no continuance would have been necessary.
  
  The Defense does not understand how this constitutes stalling, nor how delaying proceedings while the Defendant remains overseas would benefit the Defense in any way. You are the one who waited 8 days to bring up the fact that you will transport him back for trial, not us.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A decision was reached in the above case on the 31st day of January, 2026.

The Court has received satisfactory Proof of Life.

Given that the prior Motion for Continuance was submitted on the grounds of the unclear detainment of the Defendant, which has since been clarified by both the Prosecution and State Government, the Court will vacate its previous Order and move on to scheduling.

The Court has been assured, through the Prosecution, that the State Government will be able to arrange for transportation for the scheduled date. As such, the Court will be giving a buffer prior to the available dates to ensure there are no issues with transportation.


So Ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 31st day of January, 2026.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


Respectfully,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A trial date was set on the above case on the 5th day of February, 2026.

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 21:00 on 15th day of February, 2026 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of February, 2026.

---

Facts

---

• The Victim, Mr. Lester Conway, had a prior wound on his rear as a result of a gunshot.
• The Defendant, Lewis Langley, placed a lit cigarette against the prior injury of Mr. Lester Conway.

---

Arguments From Either Side

---

Defense has argued throughout the case that the Prosecution's case cannot substantiate the willfulness and intent behind the act. The Defense states that the Defendant has had a long-standing friendship and history with the Victim. The Defense also states that, prior to the incident, the gathering of individuals was there for casual conversation and was of a jovial nature.

Prosecution has argued that the act of placing a lit cigarette against the victim's wound can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful act. The Prosecution also highlights that the Victim's response of being unaware, then yelping in pain and surprise, goes to substantiate the lack of jovial actions, but also goes to substantiate the intentional act.

---

Verdict

---

The Court's role in this case, given the facts, is to determine whether the action was willful and unlawful. The Court defines the term willful as an intentional or deliberate act.

The Court finds that the Defendant's actions are not accidental. CCTV footage from Prosecution's Exhibit #4 shows the Defendant clearly taking his lit cigarette and placing it against the exposed wound that the victim had recently suffered. The Court does not doubt that the actions of the Defendant were intentional.

The Court recognises the arguments made about the Defendant's history and relationship with the Victim; however, the Court places no weight on this, given the intentional and deliberate nature of the actions, as well as the victim's response.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of GM02 - Battery (Gov. Emp.), I find the defendant, Lewis Langley, guilty.

The Court also notes that while there is a difference in time served and fines, no additional time and fines will be charged.

So Ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]